For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
What degree of truth is there in a lion, and how much truth is there in it?
Does the Mind exist?
How is the 'erqion' observed?
1. The lion is a degree of a mammal. I don't know what an ergion is.
I asked you, What degree of truth is there in a lion, AND how much truth is there in it?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:16 pm1. The lion is a degree of a mammal.
Although this may well be 100% ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, NOT being able to elaborate on, NOR being able to explain, how this ALL ACTUALLY WORKS, will NOT help "others" to UNDERSTAND and SEE 'you' BETTER.
But 'you' stated and CLAIMED, "that which exists is that which is observed", and you also stated and CLAIMED, "the mind observes". Now, because 'ergion' EXISTS, this MEANS that "the mind" observes the 'ergion'. So, what is this 'you' thing, known as "eodnhoj7" here, in this forum, which does NOT YET KNOW what an 'ergion' is, but which "the mind" IS OBSERVING?
You CLAIMED that, If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
Although this may well be 100% ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, NOT being able to elaborate on, NOR being able to explain, how this ALL ACTUALLY WORKS, will NOT help "others" to UNDERSTAND and SEE 'you' BETTER.
But 'you' stated and CLAIMED, "that which exists is that which is observed", and you also stated and CLAIMED, "the mind observes". Now, because 'ergion' EXISTS, this MEANS that "the mind" observes the 'ergion'. So, what is this 'you' thing, known as "eodnhoj7" here, in this forum, which does NOT YET KNOW what an 'ergion' is, but which "the mind" IS OBSERVING?
You may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?
That is, to you, correct?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.
1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:53 amYou may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.
Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?
And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?
Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.
And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?
Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.
By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?
Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.
When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.
By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?
After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.
That is, to you, correct?
But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?
If yes, then okay.
But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.
But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.
I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.
But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.
Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
Points of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:53 amYou may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.
Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?
And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?
Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.
And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?
Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.
By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?
Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.
When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.
By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?
After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.
That is, to you, correct?
But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?
If yes, then okay.
But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.
But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.
I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.
But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.
Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
So what?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.
Okay, if you say so.
To who, or what?
Is it, to you?
1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another. For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:54 amPoints of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:53 am
You may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.
Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?
And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?
Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.
And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?
Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.
By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?
Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.
When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.
By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?
After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.
That is, to you, correct?
But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?
If yes, then okay.
But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.
But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.
I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.
But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.
Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.
And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.
So what?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.
You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?
Okay, if you say so.
To who, or what?
Is it, to you?
If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?
The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:54 amPoints of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?
Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.
And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.
So what?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.
You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?
Okay, if you say so.
To who, or what?
Is it, to you?
If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?
The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.
1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:41 amBUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:54 am
Points of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?
Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.
And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.
So what?
You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?
Okay, if you say so.
To who, or what?
Is it, to you?
If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?
The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.
By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.
And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.
For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.
However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.
In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.
I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.
See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
And, as I just said:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:41 amBUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.
By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.
And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.
For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.
However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.
In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.
I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.
See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
LOL 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE about what my ACTUAL FULL VIEW IS.
If you say so.
And, what is 'the point', which you are so desperately 'trying to' say, relay, and relate here?
I had NEVER even thought I had, let alone even said I had.
This is partly because NO one has even asked me to.
OF COURSE, there can ONLY EVER be One True SOURCE.
1. A point as many different things is the point unfolding to further points. One point expressed though many, just in the same manner you equating the difference of points under one point.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:26 amAnd, as I just said:Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:41 am
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.
By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.
And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.
For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.
However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.
In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.
I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.
See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Therefore, 'a point' may NOT necessarily unfold AT ALL, which is 'my point', or yet 'another point', which reminds me, what was 'your point' (which is, literally, yet 'another point'again), in saying the above?
See, there REALLY is MANY DIFFERENT 'points'.LOL 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE about what my ACTUAL FULL VIEW IS.
Just for your information, you could NOT be FURTHER FROM thee ACTUAL here, either.If you say so.And, what is 'the point', which you are so desperately 'trying to' say, relay, and relate here?I had NEVER even thought I had, let alone even said I had.
This is partly because NO one has even asked me to.OF COURSE, there can ONLY EVER be One True SOURCE.
What do you mean. "Truth" in "it"?
SO you are implying that unless you observe it, it does not exist.
2. That which exists is that which is observed.
Mental phenomena are NOT observable. By your rubric they do not even exist.
3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.
What do you believe?
1. That there is a relation through which one underlying phenomenon repeats across many.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:16 pmWhat do you mean. "Truth" in "it"?SO you are implying that unless you observe it, it does not exist.
2. That which exists is that which is observed.
That's surely a load of old bollocks isn't it?Mental phenomena are NOT observable. By your rubric they do not even exist.
3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.
What do you believe?