Philosophy Now Forum

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:09 pm Yes it is, your equation relative to Pi and Phi, is a series of symbols which represent a series of relations. It defines reality.

Symbols define reality?
Or reality defines symbols?

Both therefore proposition one is true and as true necessitates symbols as real phenomenon in themselves.

One must beg/end in the reality, not with symbols.

All converging and diverging from a point, which the point as the most universal symbol necessitates reality beginning and ending with symbols in one respect. Dually where all symbols act as mediators to some phenomena and this phenomena mediates to further phenomenon, the symbol and phenomena both equivocate through the same nature.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:09 pm But the underlying relation is defined through symbols. The underlying relation cannot be expressed except through symbols.

Symbols don't define anything - they are tools we use as "extensions" of our own human faculties.
A symbol is not a destination, it helps get the journey started. The reality is not a symbol(s).

See above.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:09 pm Thus the imaginary is necessary and as necessary is a real event in itself.

You have 'real' and 'imaginary' confused.
"Thus the real is necessary and as necessary is an unimaginable event in itself."
One can not imagine the reality, as reality precedes imagination.

Imagination, as the giving of image to a phenomena, is a part of reality thus real as an eveng.

The Α∞Ω can be used to try your own presumptions against their own counter-part(s).
This can virtually invert upside-down perception(s) back up-right instantly only if/when
the person is able to acknowledge their own presumption may be "upside-down".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:09 pm The imaginary, as necessary for the real event of definition (considering definition is an event), is a grounding for what is real.

Same problem.
Same solution.

Yes, that which is imaginary is real as a phenomena.

"The real, as necessary for the imaginary event of definition (considering definition is an event), is a grounding for what is imagined."

Is more accurate. This "event" is the adoption of a belief(s) which are not necessarily true
which begins a cycle(s) of suffering. Knowing all not to believe ceases such suffering.

All belief is the acceptance of a phenomena, such as a description or story.
As such belief is inevitable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:09 pm Actually you assume it undermines/collapses the "unbeliever vs believer" division, because you assume people will agree or understand your series of definitions. Ironically the evidence is scant that many people even understand your stance.

I don't assume anything of the sort, the assumption is rather your own.
I related a long time ago I moved to a different forum composed
of people who actually have/study a physical theory of the universe, thus
are able to subject it to any/all known relation(s) therein/thereof.

The physical universe results in abstractions and these abstractions as extensions of the physical universe are real. One cannot say matter alone is what constitutes reality given that both matter and abstractions operate through forms. A thing exists because it has form. Form is the universal median to all phenomena.

Reducing everything to physics is a fallacy.

This was always my intention with CKIIT: that the solution
be fully compatible with the structure of the physical universe
either real (Einstein was right) and/or imagined (not).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwUd9gHusc0

One of the most enlightened beings on the planet also agrees:
"Belief is death, actually."

Belief is inevitable and dually one of the most enlightened being state faith is one of the three most important things one can have.

It is not worth my time to argue with loopy individuals
who can not realize the loops are their own shades: evolution
is a forward progression above and beyond a cyclic one.
At the level of the human being, the evolution of that being
is placed directly in their own conscious (or not) hands.
What they make of it is of their own making.

Involution, as the converging of phenomenon, is the dual state to evolution as a polar opposite. The cyclical nature of the universe is universal, one phenomena alternates into another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:09 pm If reality is not modified through descriptions then your theory changes nothing.
However descriptions do modify reality. A series of schematics, used to build a car, are the means in which a car is formed from base materials. The abstractions act as a means of change.

It is not meant to change anything, it is meant to first acknowledge things just the way they are.
Nothing can change unless the nature of the existential reality becomes conscious in a/the being, hence
conscious knowledge of ignorance. The knowledge actually only relates to the being themselves.

Acknowledging an event is in itself an event thus a process of change. If your theory is not meant to change an interpretation of a phenomena then you are lying to yourself.



If one does not know themselves, whatever distortions they have about themselves
is the same degree(s) to which their perception of the existential reality is distorted.
This is why "know thy self" is practically axiomatic - it can not not be.

To know oneself is a loop as it observes self reflection as a process of self observation. Between that reciprocality, you are arguing for loops without even knowing it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Both therefore proposition one is true and as true necessitates symbols as real phenomenon in themselves.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm All converging and diverging from a point, which the point as the most universal symbol necessitates reality beginning and ending with symbols in one respect. Dually where all symbols act as mediators to some phenomena and this phenomena mediates to further phenomenon, the symbol and phenomena both equivocate through the same nature.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Imagination, as the giving of image to a phenomena, is a part of reality thus real as an eveng.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Yes, that which is imaginary is real as a phenomena.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm All belief is the acceptance of a phenomena, such as a description or story.
As such belief is inevitable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm The physical universe results in abstractions...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm ...and these abstractions as extensions of the physical universe are real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm One cannot say matter alone is what constitutes reality given that both matter and abstractions operate through forms. A thing exists because it has form. Form is the universal median to all phenomena.

Reducing everything to physics is a fallacy.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Belief is inevitable and dually one of the most enlightened being state faith is one of the three most important things one can have.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Involution, as the converging of phenomenon, is the dual state to evolution as a polar opposite. The cyclical nature of the universe is universal, one phenomena alternates into another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Acknowledging an event is in itself an event thus a process of change. If your theory is not meant to change an interpretation of a phenomena then you are lying to yourself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm To know oneself is a loop as it observes self reflection as a process of self observation. Between that reciprocality, you are arguing for loops without even knowing it.

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 4:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Both therefore proposition one is true and as true necessitates symbols as real phenomenon in themselves.

Not both: reality precedes symbols, not the other way around.

False, reality as composed of forms, and symbols acting as forms which mediate to further forms, necessitates the symbol as occuring simultaneously to reality. Reality as observable form is reality as symbolic.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm All converging and diverging from a point, which the point as the most universal symbol necessitates reality beginning and ending with symbols in one respect. Dually where all symbols act as mediators to some phenomena and this phenomena mediates to further phenomenon, the symbol and phenomena both equivocate through the same nature.

Reality does not beg/end, there is only life, life and life.

Reality as beginning and ending is a statement of relation between its constitutent parts. For example a horse has a beginning and end in its relation to other horses within its time and space locality. The horse as beginning is the horse existing through its relationship between other horses. Its ending shows its absence of relation, as no longer part of a heard. The beginning and end of a phenomenon shows its relation as part of a whole. This particulation, where an entity is viewed as an individual state, is an event change in itself considering the localization of any phenomenon is the manifestation of a new phenomenon as it seperates from a part of a whole. It becomes it's new whole thus contains it's own beginning and end much in the same manner the "all" contains it's own beginning and end.

As I pointed out earlier: the condition s/t = 1 does not have
an active beg/end thus the "reality" is: death is a fiction.

What happens at the "point" of death is the being loses their discerning mind
(however the content of the mind remains intact) and they "transition"
according to their own internal tendencies. The same is anyway true with life.

Life and death are thus not two separate things: life/death is every-now, as
the s/t ≠ 1 condition captures any/all local displacement(s) from unity thus
all karmic substance(s) which forms a "bubble" about a being.
The surface of this bubble contains the constituency of their own karmic substance(s).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Imagination, as the giving of image to a phenomena, is a part of reality thus real as an eveng.

I don't know what eveng (sic) is.



Imagination is in relation to reality, not reality itself.
The reality is unimaginable - hence realization.

"Event". Reality as a series of forms is imaginable given imagination is the process of imaging as the giving of image. Imagination in relation to reality necessitates it as an event in itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Yes, that which is imaginary is real as a phenomena.

Not always as intended, thus really a source of suffering(s)
and hence imagination is in relation to reality, not it itself.

If reality exists in relation to the imaginary, the imaginary is real given one cannot relate to that which is not real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm All belief is the acceptance of a phenomena, such as a description or story.
As such belief is inevitable.

Not only is the use of definite(s) out-of-control,
belief is not "the acceptance of a phenomena", as
belief itself is a phenomena rooted in both
real and imagined phenomena.

You are projecting. The dictionary definition of belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm The physical universe results in abstractions...

Not only.

Thus abstractions are real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm ...and these abstractions as extensions of the physical universe are real.

Abstractions are not "as extensions". They are severances from reality.

Then your whole theory, as an abstract definition, is a severance from reality.
After reading the above statement, and considering your whole theory is an abstraction...I have not bothered reading the rest. You contradict yourself heavily.

No, an abstraction is not real - it is abstract. The same relation exists
between real numbers and imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers
are not real, they are in relation to real. This relationship arises
in Φ as being composed of one rational '1' (relation: summation)
in addition to the irrational √5 together halved /2.

The real is the radius, the imaginary is the circumference, hence
why in complex analysis a + ib reflects this same line/curve relation.

Western maths does not see that this relationship is already present
via the relationship of rational/irrational numbers.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm One cannot say matter alone is what constitutes reality given that both matter and abstractions operate through forms. A thing exists because it has form. Form is the universal median to all phenomena.

Reducing everything to physics is a fallacy.

Energy, not matter. In the physical universe, this energy finds expression in three apparent scalar dimensions.
The nature of the relation between space and time is that of reciprocity, thus all physical bodies are bound
to the same laws governing. The good news: the nature of the reciprocal relation is able to be known.

There are two halves of the universe: physical and metaphysical.
What bridges the two is precisely what I already provided
as the {Α∞Ω}∞{beg∞end} viz. the '4' in/of 4/√Φ = π wherein
(8√5-8) = π². The latter "primes" 8 on √5 then subtracts
the original coefficient, leaving an 8-primed √5 circle/cycle.

πr² captures the area of a circle, thus (8√5-8) is the area
of a circle whose radius is √(8√5-8) or 4/√Φ. This gives

384 - 128√5
= 97.78329888...

Which concerns our roots:
±√9.88854381999...
±i√25.88854381999...

that composes the both (physical) and (metaphysical) {Α∞Ω}∞{beg∞end} axis.
This is how/why π is not a transcendental number, rather both real/geometric
and transcendent. Many "believe" one can not be both at the same time, however...
...there is one unique exception, the same is the uniqueness of Φ.
It couples the two kinds of numbers: rational and irrational
along with the reals and imaginary. It all folds back up into 1=Φπ²/16,
unity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Belief is inevitable and dually one of the most enlightened being state faith is one of the three most important things one can have.

Woah...

Inevitability of belief is not an argument in favor of, and neither
is any REALLY enlightened being rooted in faith: rather, devotion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Involution, as the converging of phenomenon, is the dual state to evolution as a polar opposite. The cyclical nature of the universe is universal, one phenomena alternates into another.

The cyclic motions associated with the physical universe (ie. time) are merely a base.
One is meant to utilize this (as a) base and evolve based on, such that the nature
of the relation between space and time is utilized for the same, as known, at the discretion
of the being.

Else: not known. The polar opposites is merely a local phenomena,
in the reality there is only 1 (not ±1). CKIIT assumes any/all users
are "polarized" thus have a {beg∞end}=TRUE condition, hence the need
to use the {Α∞Ω} to try/test any/all definite proposition(s)
by turning them against themselves:

binary state:
x IS+ a religion of peace
x is NOT- a religion of peace.

definite state:
x is a religion of +peace
x is a religion of -perpetual conflict.

Perpetually making the two one is all there is to it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm Acknowledging an event is in itself an event thus a process of change. If your theory is not meant to change an interpretation of a phenomena then you are lying to yourself.

As everything is in a perpetual state of change anyways, CKIIT is not meant to change any interpretation,
rather is meant to provoke conscious acknowledgement of being, thus (making accessible) the (real) reality
(hence LORI).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:14 pm To know oneself is a loop as it observes self reflection as a process of self observation. Between that reciprocality, you are arguing for loops without even knowing it.

To believe oneself to be something they are not... is a (caused) loop.
To know oneself is to cease any/all such caused/outstanding loops, as
internal loops will appear externally ie. external loops are rooted internally.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm False, reality as composed of forms, and symbols acting as forms...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm Reality as beginning and ending is a statement of relation...It becomes it's new whole thus contains it's own beginning and end much in the same manner the "all" contains it's own beginning and end.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm "Event". Reality as a series of forms is imaginable...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm If reality exists in relation to the imaginary, the imaginary is real given one cannot relate to that which is not real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm The dictionary definition of belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm Thus abstractions are real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm Then your whole theory, as an abstract definition, is a severance from reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm After reading the above statement, and considering your whole theory is an abstraction...I have not bothered reading the rest. You contradict yourself heavily.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm and considering your whole theory is an abstraction...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm I have not bothered reading the rest. You contradict yourself heavily.

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:32 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm False, reality as composed of forms, and symbols acting as forms...

Reality is not composed of forms/symbols acting as forms.

This is an assertion, not an argument. The letters used to type your response are forms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm Reality as beginning and ending is a statement of relation...It becomes it's new whole thus contains it's own beginning and end much in the same manner the "all" contains it's own beginning and end.

The reality does not have a beg/end, only severance(s) from it does.

You cannot sever from reality without creating a new reality that is a mimicry of the prior. For example the input/output of computer program mirrors the input/output of organisms consuming food.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm "Event". Reality as a series of forms is imaginable...

Reality is not a series of forms.

If it is composed of curvature it is, phi is perpetual curvature. A spiral is a form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm If reality exists in relation to the imaginary, the imaginary is real given one cannot relate to that which is not real.

Other way around: imaginary may exist in relation to reality.
First reality, then imagination, not the other way around.
All relations are reciprocal. The effect is a cause in itself as an approximation of the cause given it is an extension of a cause.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm The dictionary definition of belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

I don't care about dictionary definitions, for no less a reason than that definition is thoroughly incorrect.
One may believe that a statement is possibly true rather than definitely true.
Dictionary definitions are valid given they are the common meaning of a word.
If you are not using a dictionary definition then the words derive meaning from your own assertions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm Thus abstractions are real.

Really useful, yes. Real, no.

If they are useful then what is imaginary is useful.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm Then your whole theory, as an abstract definition, is a severance from reality.

You haven't even seen the theory thus you are imagining things.

Though the theory is designed to assume severance(s) from reality and provides a device of practical utility
such to reorient an individual from belief-based ignorance (concerning themselves) to knowledge (concerning the same).

It is a severance from reality as an abstraction, this abstraction is not real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm After reading the above statement, and considering your whole theory is an abstraction...I have not bothered reading the rest. You contradict yourself heavily.

I would prefer you not read any of it actually - I only reply to fill-in additional info for others.

[color=#FF0000[/color]

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm and considering your whole theory is an abstraction...

You don't know what the theory is as you haven't even seen it.

If it is a theory then it is an abstraction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:13 pm I have not bothered reading the rest. You contradict yourself heavily.

The accuser is the accused.

Still drawing from your own nature?

Are you?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm This is an assertion, not an argument. The letters used to type your response are forms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm You cannot sever from reality without creating a new reality that is a mimicry of the prior. For example the input/output of computer program mirrors the input/output of organisms consuming food.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm If it is composed of curvature it is, phi is perpetual curvature. A spiral is a form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm All relations are reciprocal. The effect is a cause in itself as an approximation of the cause given it is an extension of a cause.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm Dictionary definitions are valid given they are the common meaning of a word.
If you are not using a dictionary definition then the words derive meaning from your own assertions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm If they are useful then what is imaginary is useful.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm It is a severance from reality as an abstraction, this abstraction is not real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm If it is a theory then it is an abstraction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm Are you?

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm This is an assertion, not an argument. The letters used to type your response are forms.

I'm not here to argue about such things, as
there is no point - it is embedded in your psyche
along with many other things I care not to address.

Yes you are.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm You cannot sever from reality without creating a new reality that is a mimicry of the prior. For example the input/output of computer program mirrors the input/output of organisms consuming food.

Hence the "reality" you imagine.

Hence the "reality" you imagine.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm If it is composed of curvature it is, phi is perpetual curvature. A spiral is a form.

Curvature relates to linear and vice versa - hence the Kepler golden triangle
with sides (and hypotenuse) 1/√Φ/Φ relates discrete rational integers (ie. lines)
to non-terminating irrationals (ie. curves, such as Φ).

Image and likeness is not a form, it is a relationship
just as space and time are a (reciprocal) relationship.

Again assertions with no argument. Image, likeness and form are synonyms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm All relations are reciprocal. The effect is a cause in itself as an approximation of the cause given it is an extension of a cause.

All relations r have a reciprocal 1/r.
The reciprocal of Φ is 1/Φ viz. Φ-1=0.618...

Φ is the only number in the universe which,
when squared (as an irrational), produces itself back
plus a rational 1. This is why it is found in 1=Φπ²/16.

Again, another abstraction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm Dictionary definitions are valid given they are the common meaning of a word.
If you are not using a dictionary definition then the words derive meaning from your own assertions.

Common meaning does not imply correct meaning.
Words/definitions are ultimately unimportant, as
motive/will/intent will always supersede.

Motive and intent are projections of assertions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm If they are useful then what is imaginary is useful.

Can be, yes.

If the imaginary is useful for describing what it real then by default it is real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm It is a severance from reality as an abstraction, this abstraction is not real.

It addresses severances from reality while conforming to ordinary mathematics
which can be used to describe the physical universe as-it-is.


Addressing severance, using an abstraction which are severance from reality, is a severance from reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm If it is a theory then it is an abstraction.

i. There is nothing wrong with abstraction (it is necessary)
ii. The Edenic dilemma it solves for is itself an abstraction

If abstraction is necessary, then what is imaginary is necessary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:42 pm Are you?

My nature is of concern for humanity - yours seems to be to
accuse me of just about everything you are yourself doing.

My nature is of concern for humanity - yours seems to be to
accuse me of just about everything you are yourself doing.




The projection phenomenon is of interest to me because
this is what the House of Islam has been doing to "Jews"
for 1400 years as the "believers" have none awareness that
they are themselves the real book-worshiping "Jews".
The pathological need/inclining to scapegoat implies
inability to account for one's own action, hence
the original sin of Adam failing to do the same
before blaming both the woman and god
for his own actions. Follows: Cain, tiller
of the soil (draw from one's own nature).

Left scapegoats all onto the Right.

And what of the muslims who do not scapegoat other peoples? Your theory is a reaction to your own projections of Islam. So what is this forum where others take your theory seriously?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Again assertions with no argument. Image, likeness and form are synonyms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Image, likeness and form are synonyms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Again, another abstraction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Motive and intent are projections of assertions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm If the imaginary is useful for describing what it real then by default it is real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Addressing severance, using an abstraction which are severance from reality, is a severance from reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm If abstraction is necessary, then what is imaginary is necessary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm And what of the muslims who do not scapegoat other peoples? Your theory is a reaction to your own projections of Islam. So what is this forum where others take your theory seriously?

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Again assertions with no argument. Image, likeness and form are synonyms.

You follow with the assertions:

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Image, likeness and form are synonyms.

The accuser is the accused.

How can I be projecting my own personal viewpoint by stating "image", "form" and "likeness" are synonyms? The argument presented is a statement of definition as to how "image", "form" and "likeness" relate.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/likeness

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Again, another abstraction.

Incessantly playing an 'abstraction' card does naught but demonstrate
your lacking the ability to recognize the utility of ie. there is nothing
wrong or bad with abstraction - it can be useful, however not so much here,
as one may rationally solve for the nature of the relation between space and time
as both are normalized to unity anyways.

You view abstractions as imaginary, yet your theory is supposed to eliminate what is imaginary, thus you eliminate your own theory.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Motive and intent are projections of assertions.

They are the constituency of real-word choices/actions regardless,
including motive/intent relating to human suffering.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm If the imaginary is useful for describing what it real then by default it is real.

Not is, can be. Your use of definite(s) is obnoxiously crass again.
The imaginary is also useful for describing what is not real.

If something can be useful, then eventually is useful. The imaginary as useful is the imaginary as real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm Addressing severance, using an abstraction which are severance from reality, is a severance from reality.

Abstraction need not be a severance from reality
unless the abstraction is based on something imaginary
rather than something that is real. This is a matter
of consciousness (or lack of) and each being is their own
severance/union from/with reality.

But abstractions are imaginary according to you given that the symbols which form them are imaginary.

Abstractions are not a severance from reality, unless it is based upon something imaginary, yet the abstraction is imaginary thus any abstractions based upon reality are a severance from reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm If abstraction is necessary, then what is imaginary is necessary.

Yes, necessary to discern what is real.

So what is imaginary is necessary, suffering is a result of what is imaginary, thus suffering is necessary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:11 pm And what of the muslims who do not scapegoat other peoples? Your theory is a reaction to your own projections of Islam. So what is this forum where others take your theory seriously?

I asked about the Muslim which does not scapegoat other people, considering there are believing muslims which do not scapegoat others. Not all believing muslims are obsessed with scapegoating jews. Blaming Islam for suffering and creating a theory stating Islam is false because we do not measure pi properly and everything is reduced to photons is .............

I also asked what forum is this where others take you seriously.


Of principle concern: the first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim. All others are corollary. The problem is the establishment of a 'state' based on the life of a single MAN: in the case of Islam, this is Muhammad (effectively a male central figure idol). He, like Adolph Hitler, amassed power via public oration, weaponized the state against his political adversaries, expanded militarily while signing/breaking peace treaties and ultimately committed organized genocide(s) against "Jews" only to go down blaming Jews. This is the general arch / archetype of Nazism/Islam - blame the Jews (ie. others) which relatively relates to the foundational book of Genesis as the 'original sin' of Adam blaming the woman for his own actions. This is the reality of the hijab/niqab/burqa being as an elaboration of the man blaming the woman for his own inability to account for his own actions esp. sexual ones. This is what the story is all about - men learning to control their lower organs such to empower the higher organ, the brain. For example I exercise the choice to remain in chastity and use this energy for other purposes.

The theory is the product of the simple single question 'from whence human suffering?' which began with a related question 'from whence her suffering?' concerning someone I encountered in my own experience. What evolved out of these inquiries is what CKIIT was/is/will be, and will be launching on a protected platform in the near future. For now, we have a full physical theory of the universe which we are able to capture/represent by way of use of a dual quaternion.




I will soon be showing how/why the outstanding Millennium Prize Problem 'The Riemann Hypothesis' is true by ananke: it can not not be true, given we now know the discrete terminal axes through which all numbers relations transit, including the real/imaginary numbers in/of complex analysis. The problem is: seeing the truth of the Riemann Hypothesis requires one understand how/why present-day "approximated" pi actually (rather catastrophically) misses an entire constituency of the circle, only accounted for if/when measuring the circle-of-all-circles: the √5 diameter circle.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm How can I be projecting my own personal viewpoint by stating "image", "form" and "likeness" are synonyms? The argument presented is a statement of definition as to how "image", "form" and "likeness" relate.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm You view abstractions as imaginary, yet your theory is supposed to eliminate what is imaginary, thus you eliminate your own theory.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm If something can be useful, then eventually is useful. The imaginary as useful is the imaginary as real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm But abstractions are imaginary according to you given that the symbols which form them are imaginary.

Abstractions are not a severance from reality, unless it is based upon something imaginary, yet the abstraction is imaginary thus any abstractions based upon reality are a severance from reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm So what is imaginary is necessary, suffering is a result of what is imaginary, thus suffering is necessary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm I asked about the Muslim which does not scapegoat other people, considering there are believing muslims which do not scapegoat others. Not all believing muslims are obsessed with scapegoating jews. Blaming Islam for suffering and creating a theory stating Islam is false because we do not measure pi properly and everything is reduced to photons is .............

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm I also asked what forum is this where others take you seriously.

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm How can I be projecting my own personal viewpoint by stating "image", "form" and "likeness" are synonyms? The argument presented is a statement of definition as to how "image", "form" and "likeness" relate.

The point being made was that you can't see your own hypocrisy:
you accused me of making assertions with no argument, then followed
by making assertions with no argument.

'Statement of definition' is an assertion before anything else.

False, I am following my own premises where everything is an assertion. Your premises do not allow that thus contradict themselves on their own terms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm You view abstractions as imaginary, yet your theory is supposed to eliminate what is imaginary, thus you eliminate your own theory.

I do not view abstractions as only imaginary, they also have utility concerning what is real.
Space and time are themselves abstractions - they have no properties independent of one another
and are thus only defined according to the nature of their relationship: reciprocal aspects of motion.

My theory is not supposed to eliminate what is imaginary, rather human suffering.
The problem is belief, the solution is knowledge of all not to believe, however
this requires use of conscience.

But what is imaginary results in human suffering according to you.

Belief is not a conscious process - it is a stagnating one.
Evolution is not a stagnant process... therefor it must be a conscious one.

Involution, as a dual to evolution, is the return of everything to its origin point.
Evolution alone is contradictory as even evolution must be evolved from thus resulting in involution.

Hence: conscious knowledge of ignorance - to know one knows not
is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself which ever-allows for the possibility
of knowing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm If something can be useful, then eventually is useful. The imaginary as useful is the imaginary as real.

The imaginary has real consequences, however this does not make the constituency of the imaginary real.
Arguing imaginary as real is not unlike arguing belief-based ignorance as knowledge.


An effect is an approximation of a cause thus a cause in itself. As a cause, what is imaginary is also what is real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm But abstractions are imaginary according to you given that the symbols which form them are imaginary.

Abstractions are not a severance from reality, unless it is based upon something imaginary, yet the abstraction is imaginary thus any abstractions based upon reality are a severance from reality.

More "according to you" - speak for yourself and yourself alone.
Putting words into others' mouths is essentially what Nazis do.

The abstraction is not what is important - it is what lies underneath.

That abstraction as a means of definition with this definition acting as the means of changing the empirical necessitates abstraction as real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm So what is imaginary is necessary, suffering is a result of what is imaginary, thus suffering is necessary.

Suffering is not necessary, it is a product of ignorance.
If one is ignorant (conditional), one will suffer.
If you wish to believe suffering is "necessary" then truly
you are not unlike a Nazi who cares not for others.

Suffering is necessary for growth, an example of this is an exercise program.
One must suffer through a series of intense movements in order to grow.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm I asked about the Muslim which does not scapegoat other people, considering there are believing muslims which do not scapegoat others. Not all believing muslims are obsessed with scapegoating jews. Blaming Islam for suffering and creating a theory stating Islam is false because we do not measure pi properly and everything is reduced to photons is .............

And I answered - the first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim. The problem is not Muslims, the problem is Islam militarily "believing" it is a solution instead of a problem. It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" the opposite of what is true, and Islam "believes" itself to be a solution despite being a problem. That is the nature of the book-worshiping "Jew" - hence Muslims can not see the book-worshiping "Jew" in themselves, which is where the real book-worshiping "Jew" actually lives. The problem with Islam is idolizing a single man who religiously blamed Jews for all of his own crimes against humanity, including genocide. Thus, like idol, like idol worshiper - Islam is a scapegoating ideology from inception on.

I am not blaming Islam for suffering, Islam is blaming others for their suffering not knowing why they suffer: their own belief.

I knew several muslims who did not suffer nor caused suffering because of there beliefs. Blaming Islam for suffering is an overarching projection.

I encountered the pi problem when I sought to unite line and curve (corollary of understanding the nature of the relation between Adam and Eve) and realized that the golden ratio and pi are actually not two autonomous things, they are one. This is what allowed the solving for e = MC² and I know the reason those who can not see it is because they have no respect for the mother and father of creation ie. how the universe actually works instead of their own imaginations. This is how/why the design of CKIIT first made sure it was inductively rooted in the physical universe within which we live.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:59 pm I also asked what forum is this where others take you seriously.

Not me - I hardly take myself seriously, however they do take the solving for Einstein's e = MC² seriously.

I asked what forum where they take you seriously, not if you take yourself seriously.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm False, I am following my own premises where everything is an assertion. Your premises do not allow that thus contradict themselves on their own terms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm But what is imaginary results in human suffering according to you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm Involution, as a dual to evolution, is the return of everything to its origin point.
Evolution alone is contradictory as even evolution must be evolved from thus resulting in involution.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm An effect is an approximation of a cause thus a cause in itself. As a cause, what is imaginary is also what is real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm That abstraction as a means of definition with this definition acting as the means of changing the empirical necessitates abstraction as real.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm Suffering is necessary for growth, an example of this is an exercise program.
One must suffer through a series of intense movements in order to grow.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm I knew several muslims who did not suffer nor caused suffering because of there beliefs. Blaming Islam for suffering is an overarching projection.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm I asked what forum where they take you seriously, not if you take yourself seriously.

nothing wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:24 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm False, I am following my own premises where everything is an assertion. Your premises do not allow that thus contradict themselves on their own terms.

Space and time are measurably discrete units.
Discrete units implies discretion.
Definite assertions can (only) be definitely true or definitely false.

False, definitions can be both true and false. A unicorn can be true as an abstract entity, false as an empirical one. Even these contexts are grounded in an expansion of context determining truth value where even the unicorn is true as an empirical entity given it exists as a drawing.


It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" the opposite of what is true.
It takes "knowledge" to know who/what/where/why/when/how and if
not to "believe".

Knowledge as acceptance of phenomenon is knowledge as belief of phenomenon. The key medial term which unites knowledge and belief is "acceptance". Reason, as the measuring of phenomenon and placing them into contexts, mediates both knowledge and belief given reason is the assumption thus inversion of one form into another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm But what is imaginary results in human suffering according to you.

Not only: believing what is imaginary to be real results in human suffering.
Conflation of belief and knowledge is the same as conflation of imaginary and real.

All reality as a process of "giving image to" is reality as imaginary. What we perceive through the senses is that which exists through images. These images are the approximation of the one source through many forms.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm Involution, as a dual to evolution, is the return of everything to its origin point.
Evolution alone is contradictory as even evolution must be evolved from thus resulting in involution.

Not all returns to a point of origin - only that which is bound to cyclical movement.
Cyclical movement is the basis of the physical existence, however can be transcended.

The cyclical movement of phenomenon necessitates a specific cyclical form which transcends being itself as the origin of being. One form is approximated through many.

Dually you contradict yourself given your theory is grounded in defining the physical as a means of defining reality yet you claim reality is not cyclical.

Third, not all is subject to evolution, without involution evolution does not exist given that both form a reciprocal relation. Evolution as a universal context that stems across being necessitates that even evolution must be evolved from.


Spirituality means one's experience of life has transcended the physical.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm An effect is an approximation of a cause thus a cause in itself. As a cause, what is imaginary is also what is real.

Effects are not approximate - they are measurably discrete, just as space and time are.
What real is to rational terminating, imaginary is to irrational non-terminating hence
irrational numbers allows magnitudes to go around in circles according to their constituency.

Effects are an approximation of the source given it is expression of the cause in multiple states. For example 2 as an effect of 1 self referencing is 2 as an approximation of 1.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm That abstraction as a means of definition with this definition acting as the means of changing the empirical necessitates abstraction as real.

Abstraction neither is a means of definition nor changes the empirical.

False, all abstract symbols are a means of defining the physical through the use of symbols. For example a series of schematics act as a means of defining the physical and act as a means of taking what is formless, sand for example, and inverting it into a form, a castle.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm Suffering is necessary for growth, an example of this is an exercise program.
One must suffer through a series of intense movements in order to grow.

When one is exercising, they are doing it consciously.
When one is believing, they are doing it unconsciously, thus
in the former, suffering is expected, thus manageable, whereas
in the latter the circumstances are different.

It is still suffering. Suffering as manageable is still suffering.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm I knew several muslims who did not suffer nor caused suffering because of there beliefs. Blaming Islam for suffering is an overarching projection.

The problem is belief. Islam happens to be rooted in belief. So are Judaism and Christianity.
All utilize books and male central figure idols, however only Islam continues to divide the world
on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever" wherein because it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves
superior to others and/or others inferior to themselves, in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation,
all Nazis are pinned (by necessity) to the side of the "believers". The same works for so-called Satan
also requiring "believers" to "believe" Satan is God / evil is good. The underlying confusion lies in belief.

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum.

Knowledge is justified belief.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:29 pm I asked what forum where they take you seriously, not if you take yourself seriously.

They don't take me into consideration, they take my work into consideration.
Unity was solved for on 04/13/2020 and I specifically told them not to associate
the solving of it to a particular person, but rather let the equality belong to everyone.

I asked what forum they take you seriously, as in your theory seriously. You claim it is your theory and as such you are responsible for it. The question of unity is not a solvable problem given any definition of unity requires a multiplicity of terms which results in contradiction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm False, definitions can be both true and false...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Knowledge as acceptance of phenomenon is knowledge as belief of phenomenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm All reality as a process of "giving image to"

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm The cyclical movement of phenomenon necessitates a specific cyclical form which transcends being itself as the origin of being.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Dually you contradict yourself given your theory is grounded in defining the physical as a means of defining reality yet you claim reality is not cyclical.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Third, not all is subject to evolution, without involution evolution does not exist given that both form a reciprocal relation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Effects are an approximation of the source given it is expression of the cause in multiple states.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm False, all abstract symbols are a means of defining the physical

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm It is still suffering. Suffering as manageable is still suffering.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Knowledge is justified belief.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm I asked what forum they take you seriously, as in your theory seriously. You claim it is your theory and as such you are responsible for it. The question of unity is not a solvable problem given any definition of unity requires a multiplicity of terms which results in contradiction.

nothing wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:57 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm False, definitions can be both true and false...

Is/Not are definite(s).
Definite assertions can only be definitely true or definitely false, else
the concerned assertion itself is not actually a definite assertion.

False, a unicorn exists is a definite assertion. Its existence as an abstraction is true. Its existence as an empirical phenomenon is false. Either truth value, both simultaneous is definite.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Knowledge as acceptance of phenomenon is knowledge as belief of phenomenon.

Knowledge is not "acceptance of phenomenon",
conflating knowledge with belief is like conflating
light and darkness - the presence of one implies
the absence of the other (and vice versa).

False, both knowledge and belief or rather knowledge as justified belief (where the belief is justified by a series of connected assertions) require acceptance as a key medial term which connects them. One can neither know nor believe something without first accepting the phenomenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm All reality as a process of "giving image to"

Yeah, no thanks.

Reality as existing through forms, is reality as a series of converging and diverging images.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm The cyclical movement of phenomenon necessitates a specific cyclical form which transcends being itself as the origin of being.

This is reciprocity and why 1∞= 16/Φπ² x Φπ²/16 =∞1
whence the rational/irrational relation begins/ends.

Knowledge applies first-and-last to the being themselves.
It takes a believer to believe themselves to be something
they are not.

A cyclical form transcends that of all being where knowledge, as the acceptance of forms, is an approximation of one cycle. One cycle is observed through many.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Dually you contradict yourself given your theory is grounded in defining the physical as a means of defining reality yet you claim reality is not cyclical.

Reality defines itself - consciousness is needed to see the reality just the way it is
thus rather than "defining" the reality, perceiving it without distortion allows one
to know what "reality" is (not).

Reality as defining itself is reality as a self referential cycle thus necessitating it as conscious. This self referentiality, which is the grounding of consciousness, necessitates the cycle as grounding of self awareness. All consciousness stems from a cyclical form, thus the circle is a self aware form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Third, not all is subject to evolution, without involution evolution does not exist given that both form a reciprocal relation.

Human beings are subject to/of evolution, and this is all that is of concern.
Evolution from the level of a human being must be a conscious process.

Evolution requires involution given that, as stated prior, evolution as a universal form necessitates evolution evolving from itself as evolution thus necessitating involution. Evolution as self negating necessitates is as reciprocal to involution.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Effects are an approximation of the source given it is expression of the cause in multiple states.

"...expression of the cause in multiple states" is not given,
1 is not "multiple" rather there are multiple ways to express
the only 1. This is seen in the golden ratio given it is the only number
in the universe which, when squared, produces itself (irrational) plus 1 (rational).

1=/=1 given 1 can equate to both a jet and a horse. The singular form is approximated through multiple singular forms. The effect is an approximation of the cause.

All effects in this physical universe implicitly/explicitly concerns this sole relation, as
there is only "one" of them that performs this function. In fact (actual) the golden ratio
was what was needed to understand how the dual quaternion makes use of the powers of phi
to allow the exponents to act as "gears". Concerning CKIIT:

Φ²± Φ = 1, Φ³
____________
Φ = Cosmological Constant
Φ² = (Local) Discretion
Φ³ = Gravitational Constant
1 = Φπ²/16 (space and time constants /w rational base)

The ± is effectively the alpha/omega, the two solutions are beg/end wherein
Φ³ "to believe" and 1 "to know" represent the two trees CKIIT is concerned with.

The solution solves for the root of human suffering as thus "belief"
and I have thousands of years of human history to support
as well as current affairs viz. "believer vs. unbeliever".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm False, all abstract symbols are a means of defining the physical

No they are not.

False, an abstraction such as a set of schematics, results in the empirical matter being defined and redefined in a new form through the abstraction. An abstraction such as halving an orange necessitates the abstraction of 2 and 1/2 as forming the physical.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm It is still suffering. Suffering as manageable is still suffering.

Those who "suffer" a workout negotiate their own pain/gain,
thus expect to do so knowing there is a calculated return.

Suffering is still suffering regardless of the negotiated return. If suffering is defined strictly through terms of negotiation than the root of suffering as the breaking of a negotiation and the problem or morality is a problem less of understanding and rather of mutual consent.

Things like pedophilia, rape, murder and genocide
has no such negotiated return if one is a victim of.

And your theory will not stop pedophilia, rape, murder or genocide.
It would take a "believer" to ever "believe" any of these
is "good" and/or "necessary" - hence all (genocidal) Nazis
are "believers", hence Muhammad is the same archetype
as Adolph Hitler, hence Dr. Carl Jung made the comparison.

The craft of the book-worshiping "Jew" is have all others "believe"
the "Jews" are someone other than themselves. This is Islam.

All forceful assertions, made by a tyrant, as well as the war and suffering which result necessitates the nazi archetype as stemming far beyond any religious beleif and reflecting the realm of atheistic communist governments. A system grounded in an absence of religious belief is still responsible for the same archetypal form of Nazism.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm Knowledge is justified belief.

Certainly not. "Justified belief" is a tool people use to stamp a seal-of-approval
on whatever nonsense they want to be true ie. a justification/reification of self.

Knowledge implies the absence of belief.

There is no knowledge without beleif given knowing is believing. For example seeing a storm cloud coming results in the knowledge of rain coming. This coming rain, connected with the storm clouds acting as symbols for the approaching weather, is assumed to bring rain given the storm clouds mediate this phenomenon. As to whether it rains or does not rain is a matter of beleif based upon prior circumstances. There is no fixed knowledge which exists above belief except the reciprocal nature of patterns which necessitates one phenomenon as mediating another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 pm I asked what forum they take you seriously, as in your theory seriously. You claim it is your theory and as such you are responsible for it. The question of unity is not a solvable problem given any definition of unity requires a multiplicity of terms which results in contradiction.

Unity was already postulated in the concerned theory, however was not solved for (until recently).
Unity is certainly a solvable problem, and "multiplicity of terms" contradicts nothing. If one knows not
how a man and a woman are made to be one, they suffer by way of dishonoring the mother and father
as the same is reflected in/as this humanity catastrophically de-coupling Φ and π (effectively: space and time)
as whereas from Adam's own side is derived Eve, from Φ's own side is derived π. These are indifferent.

You are ignoring the question... I asked "what" forum where you are viewed with agreement.

As to the multiplicity of terms it contradicts the theory of unity given the theory, where all is unified, is part of the unity as an expression of it. A general theory of unity exists as part of the greater unity thus is self referential, however given the multiplicity of terms needed to Express it, the one is approximated through the many.