Philosophy Now Forum

The ether is form then, and what I propose as everything composed of points, lines, circles is by default ethereal. Form is the glue of reality and is information itself as the "ether".

All points are fundamentally the same point as a point is a point, it is the quantification of points (finiteness as multiple infinities) that approximates one form through many.

Catastrophe is an assumption and relative to a point of view.

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:35 pm

The ether is form then, and what I propose as everything composed of points, lines, circles is by default ethereal. Form is the glue of reality and is information itself as the "ether".

Gaseous - best not to give the ether any definite form, it is better an arbitrary scalar conduit (ie. as in: terminal) between any/all in/of space(time) (ie. earth/water/air/fire) and counter-space(time).

Lightning phenomena, for example, does not travel from one-place-to-another: it is a/the sudden collapse of a charged field whereby if the field is sufficiently saturated, any particular (end of any) line of force (ie. proton/electron) between cloud-and-earth can snap (like a rubber band), such that the entire field will instantaneously collapse into the snapped line of force and you get the blast: all of the energy of that field instantly implodes into counter-space. Therefor, protons/electrons are merely temporary terminals (+) and (-) and have no intrinsic metric: it is the electrostatic field in/of the (gaseous etheric) atmosphere which determines mass.

viz. there is no real particulate.

All points are fundamentally the same point as a point is a point, it is the quantification of points (finiteness as multiple infinities) that approximates one form through many.

What is your intended point?

Any point (without granting the "point" as being actually a point) can have variable gravity and/or even be relatively null according to the particular approaching it (from any manner of orientation as with *P!), with any velocity, resulting in any effect.

viz. there is no real point.

Catastrophe is an assumption and relative to a point of view.

To best know regress in-of-as assumption, try ones own.

Any relatively uncertain assumption would have to
be accompanied by a relatively certainly limited point of view.

Of there is no real point, and you are using a point (?) to justify your stance, then you are using an imaginary entity and are no different than the religions you are condemning.

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:57 pm

Of there is no real point, and you are using a point (?) to justify your stance, then you are using an imaginary entity and are no different than the religions you are condemning.

I am not using a point to justify anything.

Really, the graph use where (?) telling me to imagine says otherwise.

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:25 pm

Really, the graph use where (?) telling me to imagine says otherwise.

(!)

Do you get the point?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:10 pm Look at any dialogue and you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?"

Dialogue thus is subject to a process of definition but also a static form or what definition "is".

Nothing deep here, nothing shallow either. As a matter of fact...just nothing, but this is not even a fact.

Definition thus is to be defined, but this is rarely done without making some assumption as the question of "definition" is rarely brought up...it is merely left empty and formless and all the forms which progress through this dialogue are inverted into new forms under this "empty" word.

This empty word, a hinge point of most dialogues (but there are other words as well), necessitates argument as merely a revolution of concepts around an empty concept or strictly the emptiness of assumption.

All dialogues as definitive are just loops hiding some formless assumption, loops within loops. This is definition. This is not definition. Definition is thus both right and wrong.

Science and philosophy are deemed successful if they are able to hide this loop within a number of different loops. We call this complexity "knowledge". We also call this a "circus".

Philosophy and science It is not even right except assumed as "right"...it is not even wrong except as assumed as wrong.

But this value placement of "right" and "wrong" is a value placement as well, a continuum of assumptions self referencing and fundamentally indefinite, thus placing value less on definition but rather of indefiniteness as an absence of seperation or distinction as a reflection of the loops that constitute the various perceptions that form it.

It is this self referencing of values, a perceivable hiding of assumptions under a variety of loops, that necessitates a hiding of subjectivity that equates science and philosophy to antiquated religions...belief systems driven by a prelogical anthropomorphic mythos that is the human condition itself.

This nature of "definition", that branching tree within the sky of the empty mind that distinguishes good from evil through the linear branching of assumptions as "distinct", is a mythological archetype embodied under basic forms...with "form" being the original archetype.

As such, it effectively is the reflection of an ancient religion called "story telling" meant to entertain the masses and distract them from the darkness outlying the fire of values that people circle around.


The shaking of this "tree of good and evil", as the tree is the nature of distinction through linear reasoning that manifests the same branching pattern, is the shaking of reason itself where reality is inverted to a primordial dark mass through the excessive extreme of atomization through analysis. For the tree to shake is the nature of definition to fall apart under the weight of it's own assumptions...its "fruits".

It is this good and evil that creates the polarity, the creative destruction which forms reality for what it is as the first act of branching of points of awareness is the tree archetype... the first tree rooted not in dirt but within the "sky"...the "sky" being the inherently emptiness of the mind and heart as it assumes.

So how does science and philosophy justify itself without resorting to "images"? How does it even justify it's own justification without "imagination"? Distraction through a circus of loops of course, we call this distraction "forgetting", "forgetting" divided focus, "divided focus" chaos, "chaos" we call modernity...and we justify it through a repetitive loop where if we just keep repeating it we will forget it is all imaginary...an "image".

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:10 pm Look at any dialogue and you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?"

Dialogue thus is subject to a process of definition but also a static form or what definition "is".

Nothing deep here, nothing shallow either. As a matter of fact...just nothing, but this is not even a fact.

Definition thus is to be defined, but this is rarely done without making some assumption as the question of "definition" is rarely brought up...it is merely left empty and formless and all the forms which progress through this dialogue are inverted into new forms under this "empty" word.

This empty word, a hinge point of most dialogues (but there are other words as well), necessitates argument as merely a revolution of concepts around an empty concept or strictly the emptiness of assumption.

All dialogues as definitive are just loops hiding some formless assumption, loops within loops. This is definition. This is not definition. Definition is thus both right and wrong.

Science and philosophy are deemed successful if they are able to hide this loop within a number of different loops. We call this complexity "knowledge". We also call this a "circus".

Philosophy and science It is not even right except assumed as "right"...it is not even wrong except as assumed as wrong.

But this value placement of "right" and "wrong" is a value placement as well, a continuum of assumptions self referencing and fundamentally indefinite, thus placing value less on definition but rather of indefiniteness as an absence of seperation or distinction as a reflection of the loops that constitute the various perceptions that form it.

It is this self referencing of values, a perceivable hiding of assumptions under a variety of loops, that necessitates a hiding of subjectivity that equates science and philosophy to antiquated religions...belief systems driven by a prelogical anthropomorphic mythos that is the human condition itself.

This nature of "definition", that branching tree within the sky of the empty mind that distinguishes good from evil through the linear branching of assumptions as "distinct", is a mythological archetype embodied under basic forms...with "form" being the original archetype.

As such, it effectively is the reflection of an ancient religion called "story telling" meant to entertain the masses and distract them from the darkness outlying the fire of values that people circle around.


The shaking of this "tree of good and evil", as the tree is the nature of distinction through linear reasoning that manifests the same branching pattern, is the shaking of reason itself where reality is inverted to a primordial dark mass through the excessive extreme of atomization through analysis. For the tree to shake is the nature of definition to fall apart under the weight of it's own assumptions...its "fruits".

It is this good and evil that creates the polarity, the creative destruction which forms reality for what it is as the first act of branching of points of awareness is the tree archetype... the first tree rooted not in dirt but within the "sky"...the "sky" being the inherently emptiness of the mind and heart as it assumes.

So how does science and philosophy justify itself without resorting to "images"? How does it even justify it's own justification without "imagination"? Distraction through a circus of loops of course, we call this distraction "forgetting", "forgetting" divided focus, "divided focus" chaos, "chaos" we call modernity...and we justify it through a repetitive loop where if we just keep repeating it we will forget it is all imaginary...an "image".

The definition is a relation between two things, for example, one thing being a word and another being be a sentence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:10 pm Look at any dialogue and you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?"

Dialogue thus is subject to a process of definition but also a static form or what definition "is".

Nothing deep here, nothing shallow either. As a matter of fact...just nothing, but this is not even a fact.

Definition thus is to be defined, but this is rarely done without making some assumption as the question of "definition" is rarely brought up...it is merely left empty and formless and all the forms which progress through this dialogue are inverted into new forms under this "empty" word.

This empty word, a hinge point of most dialogues (but there are other words as well), necessitates argument as merely a revolution of concepts around an empty concept or strictly the emptiness of assumption.

All dialogues as definitive are just loops hiding some formless assumption, loops within loops. This is definition. This is not definition. Definition is thus both right and wrong.

Science and philosophy are deemed successful if they are able to hide this loop within a number of different loops. We call this complexity "knowledge". We also call this a "circus".

Philosophy and science It is not even right except assumed as "right"...it is not even wrong except as assumed as wrong.

But this value placement of "right" and "wrong" is a value placement as well, a continuum of assumptions self referencing and fundamentally indefinite, thus placing value less on definition but rather of indefiniteness as an absence of seperation or distinction as a reflection of the loops that constitute the various perceptions that form it.

It is this self referencing of values, a perceivable hiding of assumptions under a variety of loops, that necessitates a hiding of subjectivity that equates science and philosophy to antiquated religions...belief systems driven by a prelogical anthropomorphic mythos that is the human condition itself.

This nature of "definition", that branching tree within the sky of the empty mind that distinguishes good from evil through the linear branching of assumptions as "distinct", is a mythological archetype embodied under basic forms...with "form" being the original archetype.

As such, it effectively is the reflection of an ancient religion called "story telling" meant to entertain the masses and distract them from the darkness outlying the fire of values that people circle around.


The shaking of this "tree of good and evil", as the tree is the nature of distinction through linear reasoning that manifests the same branching pattern, is the shaking of reason itself where reality is inverted to a primordial dark mass through the excessive extreme of atomization through analysis. For the tree to shake is the nature of definition to fall apart under the weight of it's own assumptions...its "fruits".

It is this good and evil that creates the polarity, the creative destruction which forms reality for what it is as the first act of branching of points of awareness is the tree archetype... the first tree rooted not in dirt but within the "sky"...the "sky" being the inherently emptiness of the mind and heart as it assumes.

So how does science and philosophy justify itself without resorting to "images"? How does it even justify it's own justification without "imagination"? Distraction through a circus of loops of course, we call this distraction "forgetting", "forgetting" divided focus, "divided focus" chaos, "chaos" we call modernity...and we justify it through a repetitive loop where if we just keep repeating it we will forget it is all imaginary...an "image".

The definition is a relation between two things, for example, one thing being a word and another being be a sentence.

And a sentence is?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:22 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:23 pm
The definition is a relation between two things, for example, one thing being a word and another being be a sentence.

And a sentence is?

A collection of words that points to an abstract or real object.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:53 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:22 pm

And a sentence is?

A collection of words that points to an abstract or real object.

So a sentence is a tautology of one word through another, resulting in a set of words, that leads to further word(s)?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:53 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:29 pm
A collection of words that points to an abstract or real object.

So a sentence is a tautology of one word through another, resulting in a set of words, that leads to further word(s)?

I am afraid that I don't understand what you are saying.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:51 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:53 pm

So a sentence is a tautology of one word through another, resulting in a set of words, that leads to further word(s)?

I am afraid that I don't understand what you are saying.

A tautology is the same thing twice in different words.

A tautology is the the same thing twice from various symbols.

The second sentence is a tautology of the prior.

Words are symbols. Sentences are multiple words as complex symbols.

A sentence is a variation of a single word through many words, one symbol through many.