Void of Void; Absolute; Relative; Recursion

[Gary Childress]

Quantify and qualify? I just did, you erase what does not fit in your little box....so here it is again:

The distinction of distinction is the indistinct by which distinction is distinct as distinction and indistinct is a scale of that distinction. A purely monadic process allows for dichotomies without being reducible to them as the scales of the primitive are but the primitive at scale.

But you are not bright, by your own standards so here is a visual:

Simple example; geometry.

A single 0d point is indistinct, there is nothing...void:
● =

How is a single point not a "distinct" point?

Because you are comparing ● to all the points on your screen. Hence why I stated ● = .

Well, then, can you show me an indistinct point, or what a single point looks like? Obviously, the point you typed and represented with "●" is distinct from the area around it, which does not contain the "●". What would a "non-distinct" point look like?

[Eodnhoj7]

How is a single point not a "distinct" point?

Because you are comparing ● to all the points on your screen. Hence why I stated ● = .

Well, then, can you show me an indistinct point, or what a single point looks like? Obviously, the point you typed and represented with "●" is distinct from the area around it, which does not contain the "●". What would a "non-distinct" point look like?

I notice how you cut out responses to shift context....as you cut out:

"So imagine a single point as this: pay attention to the act of your attention. That is a single point."

I get the impression, given the years of us never interacting on this forum (and you never being involved with the logic section) and your sudden shift to "protecting the laws of logic" when you admit to being "rusty"....that this has nothing to do with logic and is rather of your projection of insecurity in the face of what is happening to GB and your desperate need for something stable for the world to make sense to you and for you to make sense of yourself in the world.

Am I wrong?

[Gary Childress]

Because you are comparing ● to all the points on your screen. Hence why I stated ● = .

Well, then, can you show me an indistinct point, or what a single point looks like? Obviously, the point you typed and represented with "●" is distinct from the area around it, which does not contain the "●". What would a "non-distinct" point look like?

I notice how you cut out responses to shift context....as you cut out:

Well, is there even such a thing as a 0d point? You stated that a 0d point is "indistinct" and then typed a dot. Isn't that a bit like saying "married bachelors are "indistinct""?

[Gary Childress]

I get the impression, given the years of us never interacting on this forum (and you never being involved with the logic section) and your sudden shift to "protecting the laws of logic" when you admit to being "rusty"....that this has nothing to do with logic and is rather of your projection of insecurity in the face of what is happening to GB and your desperate need for something stable for the world to make sense to you and for you to make sense of yourself in the world.

Am I wrong?

Should the laws of logic not be protected?

[Eodnhoj7]

Well, then, can you show me an indistinct point, or what a single point looks like? Obviously, the point you typed and represented with "●" is distinct from the area around it, which does not contain the "●". What would a "non-distinct" point look like?

I notice how you cut out responses to shift context....as you cut out:

Well, is there even such a thing as a 0d point? You stated that a 0d point is "indistinct" and then typed a dot. Isn't that a bit like saying "married bachelors are "indistinct""?

And you repeat the loop again, as you again cut out:

"So imagine a single point as this: pay attention to the act of your attention. That is a single point."

[Eodnhoj7]

I get the impression, given the years of us never interacting on this forum (and you never being involved with the logic section) and your sudden shift to "protecting the laws of logic" when you admit to being "rusty"....that this has nothing to do with logic and is rather of your projection of insecurity in the face of what is happening to GB and your desperate need for something stable for the world to make sense to you and for you to make sense of yourself in the world.

Am I wrong?

Should the laws of logic not be protected?

If they need protected then they are vulnerable, if they are vulnerable then they are not absolute.

But you are years late to this as they have been exposed years ago by many people and myself included....hence why the point, that you quote, stands. It is normal for people, who squandered life, to look for stability in later years....especially when that means of squandering is eroding.

You can argue about the laws all you wish....but geometric space shows a different story....and that is more objective than your laws as that space forms the distinctions of your consciousness.

So continue not saving face.

[Gary Childress]

OK. But you believe that the law of identity "undermines" itself, is that correct? Or do you believe that the law of identity does not "undermine" itself?

[Eodnhoj7]

OK. But you believe that the law of identity "undermines" itself, is that correct? Or do you believe that the law of identity does not "undermine" itself?

I do not believe anything. I just observe what happens when it is applied to itself.

I also observe spatial distinctions, limits which are not subject to belief or disbelief.

You relegating things to belief only shows that subliminally you need something to believe in...as I argue from no such context. Just pattern.

[Gary Childress]

OK. But you believe that the law of identity "undermines" itself, is that correct? Or do you believe that the law of identity does not "undermine" itself?

I do not believe anything.

So you believe that you don't believe anything. Is that correct? Or do you believe that you believe some things?

[Eodnhoj7]

OK. But you believe that the law of identity "undermines" itself, is that correct? Or do you believe that the law of identity does not "undermine" itself?

I do not believe anything.

So you believe that you don't believe anything. Is that correct? Or do you believe that you believe some things?

Belief and unbelief are distinctions. Observing a distinction is the distinction of observing a distinction thus distinction remains scale-invariant.

[Gary Childress]

I do not believe anything.

So you believe that you don't believe anything. Is that correct? Or do you believe that you believe some things?

Belief and unbelief are distinctions. Observing a distinction is the distinction of observing a distinction thus distinction remains scale-invariant.

So, according to what you "observe," does the Law of Identity "undermine" itself or does it not "undermine" itself?

[Eodnhoj7]

So you believe that you don't believe anything. Is that correct? Or do you believe that you believe some things?

Belief and unbelief are distinctions. Observing a distinction is the distinction of observing a distinction thus distinction remains scale-invariant.

So, according to what you "observe," does the Law of Identity "undermine" itself or does it not "undermine" itself?

Is the answer "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Does "or" have an identity under LEM?

[Gary Childress]

Belief and unbelief are distinctions. Observing a distinction is the distinction of observing a distinction thus distinction remains scale-invariant.

So, according to what you "observe," does the Law of Identity "undermine" itself or does it not "undermine" itself?

Is the answer "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Does "or" have an identity under LEM?

Is the answer to what "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Why wouldn't "or" = "or" under LEM?

[Eodnhoj7]

So, according to what you "observe," does the Law of Identity "undermine" itself or does it not "undermine" itself?

Is the answer "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Does "or" have an identity under LEM?

Is the answer to what "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Why wouldn't "or" = "or" under LEM?

I think you fail to see that if LEM is to have identity, "or" is subject to identity, thus any "or" between identities allows "or" as subject to itself and in turn becomes a dichotomy where

"Or" is chosen at which case "not or" cannot occur thus resulting in an absence of contrast for "or", thus no identity for "or", while simultaneously in which case there is no "not or" and '"or" or "not or"' is negated to a recursion of '"or"or'.

Or "not or" is chosen at which point the "or" operator, being subject to identity, is negated and LEM negates itself.

Simultaneously there is either one LI or the other as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = LI

Results in "LI or LI" at the meta level and the "or" operater ceases as there is no choice in that context

While from another simultaneous angle it can be show as
"LI or -LI" at which point

LI is chosen and LI exists without LNC or LEM, as not LI, or
-LI is chosen and LNC and LEM contain no identities and have no identities thus LEM and LNC cease.

[Gary Childress]

Is the answer "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Does "or" have an identity under LEM?

Is the answer to what "or" or "not or" when LEM is applied? Why wouldn't "or" = "or" under LEM?

I think you fail to see that if LEM is to have identity, "or" is subject to identity, thus any "or" between identities allows "or" as subject to itself and in turn becomes a dichotomy where

"Or" is chosen at which case "not or" cannot occur thus resulting in an absence of contrast for "or", thus no identity for "or", while simultaneously in which case there is no "not or" and '"or" or "not or"' is negated to a recursion of '"or"or'.

Or "not or" is chosen at which point the "or" operator, being subject to identity, is negated and LEM negates itself.

Simultaneously there is either one LI or the other as
(A=A) = LI
(-A=-A) = LI

Results in "LI or LI" at the meta level and the "or" operater ceases as there is no choice in that context

While from another simultaneous angle it can be show as
"LI or -LI" at which point

LI is chosen and LI exists without LNC or LEM, as not LI, or
-LI is chosen and LNC and LEM contain no identities and have no identities thus LEM and LNC cease.

So LI = the Law of Identity, which states that any entity in logic is exactly equal to itself.
LEM = the Law of the Excluded Middle, which states that for any statement in logic, the statement is true or else the negation of the statement is true, with no middle ground.
LNC = the law of Noncontradiction, which states that a statement in logic and its contradiction cannot simultaneously be true.

The Law of Identity is generally expressed as (A=A), (B=B), (C=C), (or whatever abbreviation one chooses), etc. So are you saying that The Law of Identity = (A=A) = (B=B) = (C=C) and therefore, A=B=C? Thus, literally, ALL things are always equal to each other, whereby one can simply replace proposition (P) at will with any and all other possible propositions?