Universal Consciousness

[Darkneos]

How can there be Everything 'and' nothing when 'Everything' already includes the 'nothing'?

How can you use the distinct terms of "Everything" and "Nothing" in the question if both are the same thing?

But 'they' are NOT the SAME 'thing'.

LOL WHY would you even ASSUME such a 'thing'?

A car, for example, includes the 'wheel', but are 'they' the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then I AGREE, but I STILL WONDER WHY you ASSUMED that what is included IN 'Everything' IS the SAME 'thing' AS Everything?

How can you disagree with "everything being nothing" (in other threads such as "1=0") if they are the same thing?

As far as I AM AWARE 'you' are the ONLY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'Everything' IS 'nothing' and that those TWO, DIFFERENT, 'things' ARE the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; besides maybe "dontaskme" of course.

So, HOW I VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DISAGREE that those two VERY DIFFERENT 'things' are NOT the SAME 'thing' IS just BECAUSE 'they' are NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

As to the paradox:

If Everything includes nothing then everything and nothing are connected thus the same thing.

So, following on with this so-called "logic" when a human body is touching an airplane, for example, then 'they' TWO DIFFERENT 'things' ARE CONNECT, which, to you, MEANS, ABSOLUTELY, that 'they' ARE thus the SAME 'thing'.

Which, by the way, is Truly HILARIOUS and AMUSING to WATCH you SAY and CLAIM here.

If everything includes nothing then the act of inclusion requires a distinction between the two in the respect that 'including something' first necessitates that 'included something' as being distinct thus separate.

YES.

This 'separation' HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'conception'.

OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'. BUT, just AS OBVIOUS, is the Fact that THROUGH 'conception' 'things' 'appear' or ARE 'created'.

OBVIOUSLY, when I, or "others", USE and SAY the words 'nothing' AND 'something' they do NOT mean the EXACT SAME 'thing'. Besides, OF COURSE, when you USE and SAY 'those TWO DIFFERENT words'.

Don’t bother trying to logic them on this. The only facepalm to me is why they are even allowed on this forum to begin with.

Like all their posts are just a form of “trust me bro” and yet when you call them or question them they default to mystical cop outs or the limits of logic.

Metaphysics doesn’t mean you get to post whatever spiritual nonsense you want without pushback. You might want to google the term before posting further.

[Darkneos]

How can you use the distinct terms of "Everything" and "Nothing" in the question if both are the same thing?

But 'they' are NOT the SAME 'thing'.

LOL WHY would you even ASSUME such a 'thing'?

A car, for example, includes the 'wheel', but are 'they' the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then I AGREE, but I STILL WONDER WHY you ASSUMED that what is included IN 'Everything' IS the SAME 'thing' AS Everything?

How can you disagree with "everything being nothing" (in other threads such as "1=0") if they are the same thing?

As far as I AM AWARE 'you' are the ONLY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'Everything' IS 'nothing' and that those TWO, DIFFERENT, 'things' ARE the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; besides maybe "dontaskme" of course.

So, HOW I VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DISAGREE that those two VERY DIFFERENT 'things' are NOT the SAME 'thing' IS just BECAUSE 'they' are NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

As to the paradox:

If Everything includes nothing then everything and nothing are connected thus the same thing.

So, following on with this so-called "logic" when a human body is touching an airplane, for example, then 'they' TWO DIFFERENT 'things' ARE CONNECT, which, to you, MEANS, ABSOLUTELY, that 'they' ARE thus the SAME 'thing'.

Which, by the way, is Truly HILARIOUS and AMUSING to WATCH you SAY and CLAIM here.

If everything includes nothing then the act of inclusion requires a distinction between the two in the respect that 'including something' first necessitates that 'included something' as being distinct thus separate.

YES.

This 'separation' HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'conception'.

OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'. BUT, just AS OBVIOUS, is the Fact that THROUGH 'conception' 'things' 'appear' or ARE 'created'.

OBVIOUSLY, when I, or "others", USE and SAY the words 'nothing' AND 'something' they do NOT mean the EXACT SAME 'thing'. Besides, OF COURSE, when you USE and SAY 'those TWO DIFFERENT words'.

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post. If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state. The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

Nothing and everything aren’t the same thing and yet all can be one.

The totality can have a comparison otherwise you wouldn’t be able to recognize it as the totality. Duh. It stands it opposition to what it is not.

Without distinctions you wouldn’t be able to know truth or falsehood.

[Age]

How can you use the distinct terms of "Everything" and "Nothing" in the question if both are the same thing?

But 'they' are NOT the SAME 'thing'.

LOL WHY would you even ASSUME such a 'thing'?

A car, for example, includes the 'wheel', but are 'they' the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then I AGREE, but I STILL WONDER WHY you ASSUMED that what is included IN 'Everything' IS the SAME 'thing' AS Everything?

How can you disagree with "everything being nothing" (in other threads such as "1=0") if they are the same thing?

As far as I AM AWARE 'you' are the ONLY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'Everything' IS 'nothing' and that those TWO, DIFFERENT, 'things' ARE the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; besides maybe "dontaskme" of course.

So, HOW I VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DISAGREE that those two VERY DIFFERENT 'things' are NOT the SAME 'thing' IS just BECAUSE 'they' are NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

As to the paradox:

If Everything includes nothing then everything and nothing are connected thus the same thing.

So, following on with this so-called "logic" when a human body is touching an airplane, for example, then 'they' TWO DIFFERENT 'things' ARE CONNECT, which, to you, MEANS, ABSOLUTELY, that 'they' ARE thus the SAME 'thing'.

Which, by the way, is Truly HILARIOUS and AMUSING to WATCH you SAY and CLAIM here.

If everything includes nothing then the act of inclusion requires a distinction between the two in the respect that 'including something' first necessitates that 'included something' as being distinct thus separate.

YES.

This 'separation' HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'conception'.

OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'. BUT, just AS OBVIOUS, is the Fact that THROUGH 'conception' 'things' 'appear' or ARE 'created'.

OBVIOUSLY, when I, or "others", USE and SAY the words 'nothing' AND 'something' they do NOT mean the EXACT SAME 'thing'. Besides, OF COURSE, when you USE and SAY 'those TWO DIFFERENT words'.

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post.

I thought you have been reading my other posts, because you have been replying to them.

If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state.

If you HAD BEEN READING ALL of what I HAVE WRITTEN, then you may have STOPPED hitting that head with that palm.

I VERY CLEARLY WROTE and SAID;
OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'.

The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

'This' ONLY APPLIES in that head ALONE. And this is because from within "OTHER" heads OTHER 'things' can and have been determined, and SEEN.

Maybe if you STOPPED ASSUMING and 'facepalming', and STARTED READING and LISTENING MORE, then you too will come.to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, AS WELL.

[Darkneos]

But 'they' are NOT the SAME 'thing'.

LOL WHY would you even ASSUME such a 'thing'?

A car, for example, includes the 'wheel', but are 'they' the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then I AGREE, but I STILL WONDER WHY you ASSUMED that what is included IN 'Everything' IS the SAME 'thing' AS Everything?



As far as I AM AWARE 'you' are the ONLY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'Everything' IS 'nothing' and that those TWO, DIFFERENT, 'things' ARE the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; besides maybe "dontaskme" of course.

So, HOW I VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DISAGREE that those two VERY DIFFERENT 'things' are NOT the SAME 'thing' IS just BECAUSE 'they' are NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.


So, following on with this so-called "logic" when a human body is touching an airplane, for example, then 'they' TWO DIFFERENT 'things' ARE CONNECT, which, to you, MEANS, ABSOLUTELY, that 'they' ARE thus the SAME 'thing'.

Which, by the way, is Truly HILARIOUS and AMUSING to WATCH you SAY and CLAIM here.


YES.

This 'separation' HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'conception'.

OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'. BUT, just AS OBVIOUS, is the Fact that THROUGH 'conception' 'things' 'appear' or ARE 'created'.

OBVIOUSLY, when I, or "others", USE and SAY the words 'nothing' AND 'something' they do NOT mean the EXACT SAME 'thing'. Besides, OF COURSE, when you USE and SAY 'those TWO DIFFERENT words'.

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post.

I thought you have been reading my other posts, because you have been replying to them.

If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state.

If you HAD BEEN READING ALL of what I HAVE WRITTEN, then you may have STOPPED hitting that head with that palm.

I VERY CLEARLY WROTE and SAID;
OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'.

The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

'This' ONLY APPLIES in that head ALONE. And this is because from within "OTHER" heads OTHER 'things' can and have been determined, and SEEN.

Maybe if you STOPPED ASSUMING and 'facepalming', and STARTED READING and LISTENING MORE, then you too will come.to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, AS WELL.

You’re wasting your time with them. Everything they say is just nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

But 'they' are NOT the SAME 'thing'.

LOL WHY would you even ASSUME such a 'thing'?

A car, for example, includes the 'wheel', but are 'they' the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then I AGREE, but I STILL WONDER WHY you ASSUMED that what is included IN 'Everything' IS the SAME 'thing' AS Everything?



As far as I AM AWARE 'you' are the ONLY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'Everything' IS 'nothing' and that those TWO, DIFFERENT, 'things' ARE the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; besides maybe "dontaskme" of course.

So, HOW I VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DISAGREE that those two VERY DIFFERENT 'things' are NOT the SAME 'thing' IS just BECAUSE 'they' are NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.


So, following on with this so-called "logic" when a human body is touching an airplane, for example, then 'they' TWO DIFFERENT 'things' ARE CONNECT, which, to you, MEANS, ABSOLUTELY, that 'they' ARE thus the SAME 'thing'.

Which, by the way, is Truly HILARIOUS and AMUSING to WATCH you SAY and CLAIM here.


YES.

This 'separation' HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'conception'.

OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'. BUT, just AS OBVIOUS, is the Fact that THROUGH 'conception' 'things' 'appear' or ARE 'created'.

OBVIOUSLY, when I, or "others", USE and SAY the words 'nothing' AND 'something' they do NOT mean the EXACT SAME 'thing'. Besides, OF COURSE, when you USE and SAY 'those TWO DIFFERENT words'.

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post. If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state. The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

Nothing and everything aren’t the same thing and yet all can be one.

The totality can have a comparison otherwise you wouldn’t be able to recognize it as the totality. Duh. It stands it opposition to what it is not.

Without distinctions you wouldn’t be able to know truth or falsehood.

1. Unity is sameness as unity is an absence of distinctions between things.
2. The totality is formless and as formless is not recognizable as we cannot make distinctions in what is formless otherwise it would not be formless.
3. With distinctions come contradictions and with contradictions a senselessness; the dichotomy of truth and falsehood negates the unity of all things as each side is correct in their own perspective. If everyone is correct in there own perspective then anything goes.

[Eodnhoj7]

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post.

I thought you have been reading my other posts, because you have been replying to them.

If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state.

If you HAD BEEN READING ALL of what I HAVE WRITTEN, then you may have STOPPED hitting that head with that palm.

I VERY CLEARLY WROTE and SAID;
OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'.

The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

'This' ONLY APPLIES in that head ALONE. And this is because from within "OTHER" heads OTHER 'things' can and have been determined, and SEEN.

Maybe if you STOPPED ASSUMING and 'facepalming', and STARTED READING and LISTENING MORE, then you too will come.to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, AS WELL.

You’re wasting your time with them. Everything they say is just nonsense.

Facepalm...that is the whole point, I am point out how things are nonsensical.

[Eodnhoj7]

But 'they' are NOT the SAME 'thing'.

LOL WHY would you even ASSUME such a 'thing'?

A car, for example, includes the 'wheel', but are 'they' the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then I AGREE, but I STILL WONDER WHY you ASSUMED that what is included IN 'Everything' IS the SAME 'thing' AS Everything?



As far as I AM AWARE 'you' are the ONLY one who thinks or BELIEVES that 'Everything' IS 'nothing' and that those TWO, DIFFERENT, 'things' ARE the EXACT SAME 'thing'. That is; besides maybe "dontaskme" of course.

So, HOW I VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY DISAGREE that those two VERY DIFFERENT 'things' are NOT the SAME 'thing' IS just BECAUSE 'they' are NOT the EXACT SAME 'thing'.


So, following on with this so-called "logic" when a human body is touching an airplane, for example, then 'they' TWO DIFFERENT 'things' ARE CONNECT, which, to you, MEANS, ABSOLUTELY, that 'they' ARE thus the SAME 'thing'.

Which, by the way, is Truly HILARIOUS and AMUSING to WATCH you SAY and CLAIM here.


YES.

This 'separation' HAPPENS and OCCURS IN 'conception'.

OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'. BUT, just AS OBVIOUS, is the Fact that THROUGH 'conception' 'things' 'appear' or ARE 'created'.

OBVIOUSLY, when I, or "others", USE and SAY the words 'nothing' AND 'something' they do NOT mean the EXACT SAME 'thing'. Besides, OF COURSE, when you USE and SAY 'those TWO DIFFERENT words'.

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post.

I thought you have been reading my other posts, because you have been replying to them.

If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state.

If you HAD BEEN READING ALL of what I HAVE WRITTEN, then you may have STOPPED hitting that head with that palm.

I VERY CLEARLY WROTE and SAID;
OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'.

The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

'This' ONLY APPLIES in that head ALONE. And this is because from within "OTHER" heads OTHER 'things' can and have been determined, and SEEN.

Maybe if you STOPPED ASSUMING and 'facepalming', and STARTED READING and LISTENING MORE, then you too will come.to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, AS WELL.

If there is only one thing then you cannot differentiate between what I state and what you state.

[Darkneos]

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post. If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state. The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

Nothing and everything aren’t the same thing and yet all can be one.

The totality can have a comparison otherwise you wouldn’t be able to recognize it as the totality. Duh. It stands it opposition to what it is not.

Without distinctions you wouldn’t be able to know truth or falsehood.

1. Unity is sameness as unity is an absence of distinctions between things.
2. The totality is formless and as formless is not recognizable as we cannot make distinctions in what is formless otherwise it would not be formless.
3. With distinctions come contradictions and with contradictions a senselessness; the dichotomy of truth and falsehood negates the unity of all things as each side is correct in their own perspective. If everyone is correct in there own perspective then anything goes.

Unity isn't sameness, this is just wrong.

Totality is not formless. Furthermore if it is not recognizable then how can you know there is even such a thing.

Contradictions don't come with distinctions, I believe I already showed this.

I can vomit out baseless stuff too but I prefer logic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothing and everything aren’t the same thing and yet all can be one.

The totality can have a comparison otherwise you wouldn’t be able to recognize it as the totality. Duh. It stands it opposition to what it is not.

Without distinctions you wouldn’t be able to know truth or falsehood.

1. Unity is sameness as unity is an absence of distinctions between things.
2. The totality is formless and as formless is not recognizable as we cannot make distinctions in what is formless otherwise it would not be formless.
3. With distinctions come contradictions and with contradictions a senselessness; the dichotomy of truth and falsehood negates the unity of all things as each side is correct in their own perspective. If everyone is correct in there own perspective then anything goes.

Unity isn't sameness, this is just wrong.

Totality is not formless. Furthermore if it is not recognizable then how can you know there is even such a thing.

Contradictions don't come with distinctions, I believe I already showed this.

I can vomit out baseless stuff too but I prefer logic.

You are not even using logic, just mindless assertions stating "You are wrong, I am right".

1. Unity requires an absence of distinctions between things otherwise if there where distinctions they would not be unified but rather standing apart.

2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?

3. If I look at my hand then look at the table and observe both standing apart from the other then there is an opposition and this opposition is a contradiction.

[Darkneos]

1. Unity is sameness as unity is an absence of distinctions between things.
2. The totality is formless and as formless is not recognizable as we cannot make distinctions in what is formless otherwise it would not be formless.
3. With distinctions come contradictions and with contradictions a senselessness; the dichotomy of truth and falsehood negates the unity of all things as each side is correct in their own perspective. If everyone is correct in there own perspective then anything goes.

Unity isn't sameness, this is just wrong.

Totality is not formless. Furthermore if it is not recognizable then how can you know there is even such a thing.

Contradictions don't come with distinctions, I believe I already showed this.

I can vomit out baseless stuff too but I prefer logic.

You are not even using logic, just mindless assertions stating "You are wrong, I am right".

1. Unity requires an absence of distinctions between things otherwise if there where distinctions they would not be unified but rather standing apart.

2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?

3. If I look at my hand then look at the table and observe both standing apart from the other then there is an opposition and this opposition is a contradiction.

Well considering you are wrong logic isn't entirely needed. Unity isn't sameness, you just assert it.

Your number 2 is dodging my question, but if I were to answer yours I'd say it's "form" is everything. Though totality is more an idea that only makes sense given a plurality of different things, etc. If all is "one" then totality loses all meaning.

Number three is still wrong. It's not an opposition or standing apart, it's just a difference and difference isn't contradiction.

Really at this point it's just easier to call you stupid.

[Eodnhoj7]

Unity isn't sameness, this is just wrong.

Totality is not formless. Furthermore if it is not recognizable then how can you know there is even such a thing.

Contradictions don't come with distinctions, I believe I already showed this.

I can vomit out baseless stuff too but I prefer logic.

You are not even using logic, just mindless assertions stating "You are wrong, I am right".

1. Unity requires an absence of distinctions between things otherwise if there where distinctions they would not be unified but rather standing apart.

2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?

3. If I look at my hand then look at the table and observe both standing apart from the other then there is an opposition and this opposition is a contradiction.

Well considering you are wrong logic isn't entirely needed. Unity isn't sameness, you just assert it.

Your number 2 is dodging my question, but if I were to answer yours I'd say it's "form" is everything. Though totality is more an idea that only makes sense given a plurality of different things, etc. If all is "one" then totality loses all meaning.

Number three is still wrong. It's not an opposition or standing apart, it's just a difference and difference isn't contradiction.

Really at this point it's just easier to call you stupid.

You are asserting my logic is wrong while asserting you know what it is. What is logic if you know it so well?

1. Unity is the absence of distinctions between things.

2. And to say "everything" is to summate all things as one. What is the one form?

3. Contradiction: a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... s-wiz-serp

3. If I am stupid, then why bother arguing with me?

[Darkneos]

You are not even using logic, just mindless assertions stating "You are wrong, I am right".

1. Unity requires an absence of distinctions between things otherwise if there where distinctions they would not be unified but rather standing apart.

2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?

3. If I look at my hand then look at the table and observe both standing apart from the other then there is an opposition and this opposition is a contradiction.

Well considering you are wrong logic isn't entirely needed. Unity isn't sameness, you just assert it.

Your number 2 is dodging my question, but if I were to answer yours I'd say it's "form" is everything. Though totality is more an idea that only makes sense given a plurality of different things, etc. If all is "one" then totality loses all meaning.

Number three is still wrong. It's not an opposition or standing apart, it's just a difference and difference isn't contradiction.

Really at this point it's just easier to call you stupid.

You are asserting my logic is wrong while asserting you know what it is. What is logic if you know it so well?

1. Unity is the absence of distinctions between things.

2. And to say "everything" is to summate all things as one. What is the one form?

3. Contradiction: a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... s-wiz-serp

3. If I am stupid, then why bother arguing with me?

1. No it isn't but repeating that is not gonna work.

2. I said totality is an idea though it's form would be everything within a given set. Without a set from which you are drawing from the word means nothing. Totality needs a reference to exist and be used coherently, so according to your logic there is no totality.

3. Because I stupidly believe in the potential of people.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well considering you are wrong logic isn't entirely needed. Unity isn't sameness, you just assert it.

Your number 2 is dodging my question, but if I were to answer yours I'd say it's "form" is everything. Though totality is more an idea that only makes sense given a plurality of different things, etc. If all is "one" then totality loses all meaning.

Number three is still wrong. It's not an opposition or standing apart, it's just a difference and difference isn't contradiction.

Really at this point it's just easier to call you stupid.

You are asserting my logic is wrong while asserting you know what it is. What is logic if you know it so well?

1. Unity is the absence of distinctions between things.

2. And to say "everything" is to summate all things as one. What is the one form?

3. Contradiction: a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... s-wiz-serp

3. If I am stupid, then why bother arguing with me?

1. No it isn't but repeating that is not gonna work.

2. I said totality is an idea though it's form would be everything within a given set. Without a set from which you are drawing from the word means nothing. Totality needs a reference to exist and be used coherently, so according to your logic there is no totality.

3. Because I stupidly believe in the potential of people.

1. If things are united there is no separation and separation only occurs through distinction.

2. And I argue, elsewhere, the totality is no-things. If the totality exists within a given set then there is something beyond the totality, i.e. the set it is within, thus leaving it not the totality.

3. So you view yourself as stupid?

[Darkneos]

You are asserting my logic is wrong while asserting you know what it is. What is logic if you know it so well?

1. Unity is the absence of distinctions between things.

2. And to say "everything" is to summate all things as one. What is the one form?

3. Contradiction: a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... s-wiz-serp

3. If I am stupid, then why bother arguing with me?

1. No it isn't but repeating that is not gonna work.

2. I said totality is an idea though it's form would be everything within a given set. Without a set from which you are drawing from the word means nothing. Totality needs a reference to exist and be used coherently, so according to your logic there is no totality.

3. Because I stupidly believe in the potential of people.

1. If things are united there is no separation and separation only occurs through distinction.

2. And I argue, elsewhere, the totality is no-things. If the totality exists within a given set then there is something beyond the totality, i.e. the set it is within, thus leaving it not the totality.

3. So you view yourself as stupid?

1. Again, wrong. There is separation in unity.

2. There is nothing beyond the totality, the totality is the set.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. No it isn't but repeating that is not gonna work.

2. I said totality is an idea though it's form would be everything within a given set. Without a set from which you are drawing from the word means nothing. Totality needs a reference to exist and be used coherently, so according to your logic there is no totality.

3. Because I stupidly believe in the potential of people.

1. If things are united there is no separation and separation only occurs through distinction.

2. And I argue, elsewhere, the totality is no-things. If the totality exists within a given set then there is something beyond the totality, i.e. the set it is within, thus leaving it not the totality.

3. So you view yourself as stupid?

1. Again, wrong. There is separation in unity.

2. There is nothing beyond the totality, the totality is the set.

1. And there is unity in separation if the multitude of things share the same phenomenon known as distinctness.
2. Thus the grand set is not a thing as thingness requires distinction and distinction only occurs through comparison.