Philosophy Now Forum

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:48 pm

P is a fixed variable.

There is no "P" in CKIIT.
CKIIT develops P =/= P.
P = *P

Then rephrase the statement above without P.

That is also your point of view, thus viewpoint is absolute....

...ly pointless.

False, just a glass with water in it.

If it is half-empty half-full, it has a property(s) otherwise absent as with any arbitrary amount of water.

Which necessitates it being half full as well, where it is both half full and half empty and we are left with a glass with water in it.

Point paradox.

That there is no real "point" makes the paradox.

No.

1. 1 point exists. It is formless.

2. The point projects to another point in all directions.

3. Each of these points projects to another point in all directions, so on and so forth.

4. Eventually we are left in a formless state again of infintine points as 1 point and reality is formless.

Then rephrase the statement above without P.

Which necessitates it being half full as well, where it is both half full and half empty and we are left with a glass with water in it.

No.

1. 1 point exists. It is formless.

2. The point projects to another point in all directions.

3. Each of these points projects to another point in all directions, so on and so forth.

4. Eventually we are left in a formless state again of infintine points as 1 point and reality is formless.

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:36 pm

Then rephrase the statement above without P.

(variability) = *

Replace the above without any variation of the word variable.

Which necessitates it being half full as well, where it is both half full and half empty and we are left with a glass with water in it.

50/50 = half/half (ie. conjugate)
49/51 = "glass of water" (ie. non-conjugate)

No.

Half is still water and half is still air. Half empty and half full implied a connection to air or water.

The first contains a definite relationship that is distinct, therefor to "define" the first as any less is relatively ignorant (if even not "incorrect").

No.

1. 1 point exists. It is formless.

What? Where?

False question, how can I say formlessness has a position if position is form?

2. The point projects to another point in all directions.

3. Each of these points projects to another point in all directions, so on and so forth.

4. Eventually we are left in a formless state again of infintine points as 1 point and reality is formless.

What is the point?

In any assumed point of reference you always end up where you began.

Replace the above without any variation of the word variable.

No.

Half is still water and half is still air. Half empty and half full implied a connection to air or water.

False question, how can I say formlessness has a position if position is form?

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:33 pm

Replace the above without any variation of the word variable.

For what reason? * might as well be (+8-).

We are left with a tautology of variables.

No.

Half is still water and half is still air. Half empty and half full implied a connection to air or water.

...

False question, how can I say formlessness has a position if position is form?

Indeed.

'position is form' (?)
or 'form has position' (!)
and/or 'orientation' (!!)
both of which can not be known
simultaneously: either one or the other.

If I have an atom (an empty sphere) I know its location relative to other atoms.

Formlessness is any/all less form: there is only one dimension of space: space.
It has a conjugate counter-space with the ether being common in both: ethereal/material.

Genesis 1:1
בראשית ברא אלהים
^infinity fabric / figure-8
את השמים <-*essence of fire/water (top circle of vesica piscis)
ואת הארץ <-* essence of earth (bottom circle of vesica piscis)

and 1:2 is the formlessness of these, less the ruach (ie. air/wind) elohim
and 1:3 is the equilateral triangle:
(I am / bestowal) ->(that)<- (I am / reception)
which is related to the fire of the burning bush.

Assumptions.

We are left with a tautology of variables.

If I have an atom (an empty sphere) I know its location relative to other atoms.

Assumptions.

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:52 pm

We are left with a tautology of variables.

The same is to acknowledge one knows not: conscious knowledge of ignorance, which is a valid knowledge. Hence...

Consciousness of ignorance is a paradox as ignorance has no set value considering if it did it would not be ignorance. It is merely, in this case a negative boundary, that shows what knowledge is by what it is not....thus knowledge becomes a self referential circle.

If I have an atom (an empty sphere) I know its location relative to other atoms.

...INFERENCE.
You can know its relative location, but not its direction.
If you want to know which direction it is traveling, you can not know its precise location.

These precepts are invariably embedded in quantum phenomena because consciousness itself relies on the same: I can know *P is unknown, thus consciously inquire how *P might be known. This process can only begin if *P is not "believed" to be known such to never give rise to the inquiry.

Actually you can only know what you know, to say P is unknown is to say your knowledge is limited.

It scales locally: if a person "believes" themselves to be something they are not (ie. a final messenger of god) their own thought process (ie. imagination/belief) will reinforce this belief in lieu of the person knowing they are not what they believe themselves to be. Then comes the bloodshed and hundreds of millions of people dead: people identify as their own belief, such that if the belief is undermined, they feel undermined. Leads to: Nazism / Fascism / Socialism and satisfies the condition 'the accuser is the accused'. Such a 'state' invariably requires "belief" in order to sustain it.

Subject to interpretation. A "final messenger of God" can be correct under certain contexts. Final in a specific place and time, before that palace and time ends, and messenger of God as strictly a projection of some form of principle that manages peoples lives.

In this way Neil D/G Tyson was correct when he stated "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance..." as each person is themselves such a pocket of unconscious ignorance believing to be separated from such. Believing to know, rather than knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to believe, is why suffering/death exists. Conflation of belief with/as knowledge is catastrophic.

Assumptions.

Local boundary condition: assumption is not intrinsically empty. It is itself an ignorant assumption.

An ignorance assumption is a fragmented assumption, there are only forms.

Consciousness of ignorance is a paradox as ignorance has no set value considering if it did it would not be ignorance. It is merely, in this case a negative boundary, that shows what knowledge is by what it is not....thus knowledge becomes a self referential circle.

Actually you can only know what you know, to say P is unknown is to say your knowledge is limited.

Subject to interpretation. A "final messenger of God" can be correct under certain contexts. Final in a specific place and time, before that palace and time ends, and messenger of God as strictly a projection of some form of principle that manages peoples lives.

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:03 am

Consciousness of ignorance is a paradox as ignorance has no set value considering if it did it would not be ignorance. It is merely, in this case a negative boundary, that shows what knowledge is by what it is not....thus knowledge becomes a self referential circle.

Conscious knowledge of ignorance is not a paradox (!): believing to know while being wrong creates a local paradox (!).

Actually it is because you are aware of something you are not aware of...exclamation Marks only magnify how emotionally charged and irrational you are.

For example a believing woman was raped when she was a child by a man who exploited his power to do so, thus she pathologically resents men.
The religion she believes in (ie. utilizing an idol man to be praised/worshiped) is founded by a man who did the same wherein his behavior established the very precedent for the woman to later be raped.

Your argument is founded by a man and atheists commit rape too, many where commanded by there government during purges, such as the Chinese and Russians. Honestly you anti religious freaks are just as hypocritical as the religions you claim are hypocritical.

The paradox is local to the believing woman: her "negative" resentment for men and her "positive" religious worship are/is indifferent.

Thus unconsciousness of ignorance is the real paradox. Each has its own gravity, and creation can be seen as paradoxes-within-paradoxes.

Actually you can only know what you know, to say P is unknown is to say your knowledge is limited.

Knowing that one knows not, is a valid knowledge.

No it's not.

Acknowledging ones knowledge is limited is the point. The possibility of knowing only presents itself when the being has locally acknowledged they do not know. Else: believing to know, never searching, and running the risk of being dead wrong.

Subject to interpretation. A "final messenger of God" can be correct under certain contexts. Final in a specific place and time, before that palace and time ends, and messenger of God as strictly a projection of some form of principle that manages peoples lives.

This is the same kind of lunacy a religious maniac might try at - attempting to justify rape and genocide. A very disturbing thing: there seems to be a latent pathology in people to attempt to justify the abuse of others.

You don't get it do you, logic can justify anything it is not subject to religion or creed.

Your system is garbage. And my proof is simple, noone has the slightest clue what you are talking about. Look at all the posts...you believe you have some deep message to alleive the suffering of the world....you and millions of other causes.

You have no clue how many justified causes are out there...that is beyond your comprehension, everyone has some fu""ing idea about how the world should be or not be...and when they don't they throw the word "love" or "peace" out like a club to the head.

It's all bullshit.


When I speak...if someone doesn't understand what I am saying I can simple say it is an in depth argument about everything succumbing to cycles.

I literally say the same thing over and over again in different variations.

I mean I am literally just saying everything from morality, to math, to politics, to mechanics, to psychology, to the end of eternity is just cycles within cycles.

I am hardly reinventing the wheel, just pointing the sun was there first.

Actually it is because you are aware of something you are not aware of...exclamation Marks only magnify how emotionally charged and irrational you are.

Your argument is founded by a man and atheists commit rape too, many where commanded by there government during purges, such as the Chinese and Russians. Honestly you anti religious freaks are just as hypocritical as the religions you claim are hypocritical.

No it's not.

Your system is garbage. And my proof is simple, noone has the slightest clue what you are talking about. Look at all the posts...you believe you have some deep message to alleive the suffering of the world....you and millions of other causes.

You have no clue how many justified causes are out there...that is beyond your comprehension, everyone has some fu""ing idea about how the world should be or not be...and when they don't they throw the word "love" or "peace" out like a club to the head.

It's all bullshit.

When I speak...if someone doesn't understand what I am saying I can simple say it is an in depth argument about everything succumbing to cycles.

I literally say the same thing over and over again in different variations.

I mean I am literally just saying everything from morality, to math, to politics, to mechanics, to psychology, to the end of eternity is just cycles within cycles.

I am hardly reinventing the wheel, just pointing the sun was there first.

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:12 pm

Actually it is because you are aware of something you are not aware of...exclamation Marks only magnify how emotionally charged and irrational you are.

I use them because I know they irritate you (!) (<-means "blunder").

Thus the internal state you are attributing to me is actually your own. This conflation happens with enmity as one draws from ones own nature to attack others. It was for this reason Cain was a "tiller of the soil".

Let us see if this "emotionally charged" and "irrational" 'state' persists in the rest of your response.

Actually it isn't my internal state...I never said they irritate or don't irritate...you said they do and now accuse me of projection....

Your argument is founded by a man and atheists commit rape too, many where commanded by there government during purges, such as the Chinese and Russians. Honestly you anti religious freaks are just as hypocritical as the religions you claim are hypocritical.

Wow - I see lots of fingers pointing in many directions, ended with an attempt to slander me as an "anti religious freak" for calling genocidal belief-based ideologies into question. Both emotionally charged and "irrational".

Freak is an abnormality, an assymetry, anti-religion, in light of the universality of dogma is irrational considering it is not assuming reality for all of what it contains.

No it's not.

This is why you are ignorant-in-and-of-yourself. You have no conscious knowledge of your own ignorance. Each (!) is owing to it (!).

I am no claiming to know it all, I am claiming infinite variation of the same thing one cannot fully comprehend. Ignorance is inevitable.

Your system is garbage. And my proof is simple, noone has the slightest clue what you are talking about. Look at all the posts...you believe you have some deep message to alleive the suffering of the world....you and millions of other causes.

Suffering exists because people have no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance for forever attempting to justify their own suffering as being due to others. CKIIT is still being developed: I'm using "subjects" from various different forums and subjecting them to it. I selectively engage based on predictions made. Your contribution lead to application of CKIIT to a pentagram:

Do you suffer?

You have no clue how many justified causes are out there...that is beyond your comprehension, everyone has some fu""ing idea about how the world should be or not be...and when they don't they throw the word "love" or "peace" out like a club to the head.

I don't need to know how many "justified causes" there are: I only need to know the root one which is most certainly not beyond my comprehension. Nobody here is talking about "love" or "peace" except for you.

I am talking about what other people claim, get the context right...know it all.

It's all bullshit.

It is your own attitude that is as much.

That is your claim...projecting much?

When I speak...if someone doesn't understand what I am saying I can simple say it is an in depth argument about everything succumbing to cycles.

I literally say the same thing over and over again in different variations.

I mean I am literally just saying everything from morality, to math, to politics, to mechanics, to psychology, to the end of eternity is just cycles within cycles.

I am hardly reinventing the wheel, just pointing the sun was there first.

I know: you worship the cycle deity and leave heads spinning.

I am assuming reality for what it is....apparently it leaves your head spinning.

Actually it isn't my internal state...I never said they irritate or don't irritate...you said they do and now accuse me of projection...

Freak is an abnormality, an assymetry (!), anti-religion, in light of the universality of dogma is irrational considering it is not assuming reality for all of what it contains.

I am no (!) claiming to know it all, I am claiming infinite variation of the same thing one cannot fully comprehend. Ignorance is inevitable.

Do you suffer?

I am talking about what other people claim, get the context right...know it all.

That is your claim...projecting much?

I am assuming reality for what it is....apparently it leaves your head spinning.

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:37 pm

Actually it isn't my internal state...I never said they irritate or don't irritate...you said they do and now accuse me of projection...

Your being irritated by them is not contingent on your admission they are.

Freak is an abnormality, an assymetry (!), anti-religion, in light of the universality of dogma is irrational considering it is not assuming reality for all of what it contains.

(!)

I assume it takes one to know one.

I am no (!) claiming to know it all, I am claiming infinite variation of the same thing one cannot fully comprehend. Ignorance is inevitable.

(!)

Do you suffer?

Yes I do, however I do not:

i. believe to suffer on account of others (for admittedly knowing I merely suffer myself)
ii. believe suffering to be a virtue and/or any measure/proximity to anything spiritual/divine

There is a knowledge barrier reached viz. that Christ consciousness can not be attained to less by way of knowing the suffering of others. I thus know any/all who suffer themselves are invariably ignorant of the suffering of any/all others to some degree. CKIIT is designed with all of this in mind: ones own orientation can be measured by their own internal state of suffering esp. in relation to their ability to perceive the suffering in/of others. The less one suffers, the closer in proximity they are to Christ consciousness. However, this is certainly absent if/when enmity is present esp. fueled by anger (ie. Lot and Abram wherein the former's "substance was great" such that the two could not dwell together).

Anger is like a spontaneous discharge of concentrated ignorance and fuels the believer vs. unbeliever conflict: Muslims want blood for their own suffering despite not knowing they suffer the deception of their own idolatrous institution.

I am talking about what other people claim, get the context right...know it all.

Why? You still refuse to acknowledge the same of CKIIT: it addresses any/all belief-based claims of others.

Is it because of the implication that assumption is not necessarily intrinsically empty?

That is your claim...projecting much?

It depends on the root of inquiry.

I am assuming reality for what it is....apparently it leaves your head spinning.

But I thought assumption is intrinsically empty?
Is it, or is it not? My head spins between the square roots of -A and +A.