Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:34 am
Referencing is pointing, pointing is observation, thus referencing is observation.

"NOT the act of referencing."

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:34 am
Referencing is pointing, pointing is observation, thus referencing is observation.

"NOT the act of referencing."

No.

And again:

The act of referencing is pointing, to point is to observe, thus the act of referencing is the act of observation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:47 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:34 am
Referencing is pointing, pointing is observation, thus referencing is observation.

"NOT the act of referencing."

No.

And again:

The act of referencing is pointing, to point is to observe, thus the act of referencing is the act of observation.

In other words if you're talking about the act of referencing, you're not even addressing my comments, because that is NOT what I'm talking about.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:03 am "NOT the act of referencing."

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:22 am In other words if you're talking about the act of referencing, you're not even addressing my comments, because that is NOT what I'm talking about.

Lol! Recursion.

The referencer is referencing the act of referencing.

WHY are you referencing the act of referencing?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:47 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:03 am

"NOT the act of referencing."

No.

And again:

The act of referencing is pointing, to point is to observe, thus the act of referencing is the act of observation.

In other words if you're talking about the act of referencing, you're not even addressing my comments, because that is NOT what I'm talking about.

Then what are you even talking about, do you even know?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:11 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:47 am
No.

And again:

The act of referencing is pointing, to point is to observe, thus the act of referencing is the act of observation.

In other words if you're talking about the act of referencing, you're not even addressing my comments, because that is NOT what I'm talking about.

Then what are you even talking about, do you even know?

As I wrote, now divided up into two convenient parts:

(1) Not the act of referencing,
(2) but what's being referenced.

No doubt you'll (at least continue to act as if you'll) still not be able to grasp the difference.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:11 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:22 am

In other words if you're talking about the act of referencing, you're not even addressing my comments, because that is NOT what I'm talking about.

Then what are you even talking about, do you even know?

As I wrote, now divided up into two convenient parts:

(1) Not the act of referencing,
(2) but what's being referenced.

No doubt you'll (at least continue to act as if you'll) still not be able to grasp the difference.

What is being referenced is what is being observed as it is a phenomenon one points too. Both pointing and what is being pointed to is the act of observation. How many times must I repeat myself for you to understand this point?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:08 pm Both pointing and what is being pointed to is the act of observation.

What's being pointed to isn't an--or "the"--act of observation. Where in the world are you getting such a nonsensical idea from?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:08 pm Both pointing and what is being pointed to is the act of observation.

What's being pointed to isn't an--or "the"--act of observation. Where in the world are you getting such a nonsensical idea from?

That which is pointed to is that which imprints. If I point to "x" then "x" imprints itself upon me. This imprintation is acceptance, acceptance is assuming, assuming is observatjon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:47 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:08 pm Both pointing and what is being pointed to is the act of observation.

What's being pointed to isn't an--or "the"--act of observation. Where in the world are you getting such a nonsensical idea from?

That which is pointed to is that which imprints. If I point to "x" then "x" imprints itself upon me. This imprintation is acceptance, acceptance is assuming, assuming is observatjon.

Talking about x being imprinted on you is not talking about x qua x. If x is something like a rock, it's there whether any people exist or not. So any act of or upon persons doesn't apply insofar as x qua x goes.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:47 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:57 pm
What's being pointed to isn't an--or "the"--act of observation. Where in the world are you getting such a nonsensical idea from?

That which is pointed to is that which imprints. If I point to "x" then "x" imprints itself upon me. This imprintation is acceptance, acceptance is assuming, assuming is observatjon.

Talking about x being imprinted on you is not talking about x qua x. If x is something like a rock, it's there whether any people exist or not. So any act of or upon persons doesn't apply insofar as x qua x goes.

x qua x is the repetition of x as x repeats. x through x shows x as repeating. This repetition of x is x imprinting itself. First there is x then x imprints itself on something formless thus allowing for x to repeat. This formlessness may be the empty state of mind through which something is assumed or it may be something formless such as sand. On one hand x repeats itself as a thought, on the other hand it repeats itself through leaving an imprint of itself on the sand through smaller rocks.

This form imprinting itself on what is formless is the grounding of observation with observation being universal and not limited to the human intellect. x qua x is repetition, repetition is observation as repetition is assuming of form through the formless.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:18 pm x qua x is the repetition of x as x repeats.

Seriously, what the frig are you talking about? You couldn't be more confused.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:18 pm x qua x is the repetition of x as x repeats.

Seriously, what the frig are you talking about? You couldn't be more confused.

False, x qua x is x through x. It shows one x as multiplying with this multiplication being the sameness of identity. x cannot be the same as x unless there is multiple x's. x as equal to x necessitates multiple x's as equality is dyadic.

It appears you are confused as you cannot negate my point.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:18 pm x qua x is the repetition of x as x repeats.

Seriously, what the frig are you talking about? You couldn't be more confused.

False, x qua x is x through x.

Holy crap you haven't the foggiest idea.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:20 pm
Seriously, what the frig are you talking about? You couldn't be more confused.

False, x qua x is x through x.

Holy crap you haven't the foggiest idea.

If you cannot provide a proper counter-argument without resorting to ad hominums then you are projecting.

Qua: "in the capacity of; as being."

x through x is x existing as x.