Logic: Where Correct Thought and Correct Sense Contradict

[Age]

1. Why do you demand answers when they have been given?

LOL
LOL
LOL

I do NOT 'demand' ANY 'thing'.

I JUST ASK, and then WAIT.

Also, what you call 'answers given', are usually just 'responses given', while the ACTUAL QUESTION is NEGLECTED.

2. Why do you not start your own thread to share your views with others if you are so certain you know things? Are you afraid of criticism?

Have you SEEN the way 'you', adult human beings, TALK TO "each other", especially in forums, as well as over the last few millenia?

REALLY NOT MUCH 'GOOD' AT ALL has been ACTUALLY ACHIEVED.

If I was so-called 'afraid of criticism', then I would NOT have SHARED MY CERTAIN VIEWS which ARE OPPOSING of YOUR VIEWS here.

3. How do you know your questions are not out of context?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

1. Or you do not understand your own question....

MAYBE SO.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for 'this'?

If yes, then GREAT, will you SHARE 'it' WITH 'us'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

2. So you are afraid of criticism.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

If not much good at all has been achieved in discussions on forums then you are contradicting your perspective if you continue discussing things.

WHAT, EXACTLY, is my SUPPOSED 'perspective', which you are here CLAIMING I am CONTRADICTING?

3. And "what" means?

'What' WAS a word I USED to, HOPEFULLY, GAIN CLARITY FROM you in regards to some SPECIFIC 'thing'. I was just asking for information SPECIFYING some 'thing'.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' are NOT going to GET ANY ACTUAL CLARITY, FROM 'you' here.

[Eodnhoj7]

LOL
LOL
LOL

I do NOT 'demand' ANY 'thing'.

I JUST ASK, and then WAIT.

Also, what you call 'answers given', are usually just 'responses given', while the ACTUAL QUESTION is NEGLECTED.


Have you SEEN the way 'you', adult human beings, TALK TO "each other", especially in forums, as well as over the last few millenia?

REALLY NOT MUCH 'GOOD' AT ALL has been ACTUALLY ACHIEVED.

If I was so-called 'afraid of criticism', then I would NOT have SHARED MY CERTAIN VIEWS which ARE OPPOSING of YOUR VIEWS here.


In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

1. Or you do not understand your own question....

MAYBE SO.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for 'this'?

If yes, then GREAT, will you SHARE 'it' WITH 'us'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

2. So you are afraid of criticism.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

If not much good at all has been achieved in discussions on forums then you are contradicting your perspective if you continue discussing things.

WHAT, EXACTLY, is my SUPPOSED 'perspective', which you are here CLAIMING I am CONTRADICTING?

3. And "what" means?

'What' WAS a word I USED to, HOPEFULLY, GAIN CLARITY FROM you in regards to some SPECIFIC 'thing'. I was just asking for information SPECIFYING some 'thing'.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' are NOT going to GET ANY ACTUAL CLARITY, FROM 'you' here.

1. And what do you mean by "proof"?

2. You are. Prove your own knowledge and post a thread of your own, otherwise you are just making questions of the wrong contexts and assertions of your own opinion.

3. Projection on your part, we are not gaining clarity from you or your questions.

[Age]

1. Or you do not understand your own question....

MAYBE SO.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for 'this'?

If yes, then GREAT, will you SHARE 'it' WITH 'us'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

2. So you are afraid of criticism.

If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.

If not much good at all has been achieved in discussions on forums then you are contradicting your perspective if you continue discussing things.

WHAT, EXACTLY, is my SUPPOSED 'perspective', which you are here CLAIMING I am CONTRADICTING?

3. And "what" means?

'What' WAS a word I USED to, HOPEFULLY, GAIN CLARITY FROM you in regards to some SPECIFIC 'thing'. I was just asking for information SPECIFYING some 'thing'.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' are NOT going to GET ANY ACTUAL CLARITY, FROM 'you' here.

1. And what do you mean by "proof"?

'That' what establishes a Fact or the Truth.

Do you have a DIFFERENT meaning for the 'proof' word?

2. You are.

Okay. Do you have 'proof' of THIS CLAIM of YOURS here?

Prove your own knowledge and post a thread of your own, otherwise you are just making questions of the wrong contexts and assertions of your own opinion.

If this is JUST what I am doing here, TO you, then okay.

3. Projection on your part, we are not gaining clarity from you or your questions.

I HOPE you are NOT GAINING CLARITY FROM 'questions'.

I FOUND CLARITY COMES FROM 'answers', INSTEAD.

[Eodnhoj7]

MAYBE SO.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for 'this'?

If yes, then GREAT, will you SHARE 'it' WITH 'us'?

If no, then WHY NOT?


If you SAY and BELIEVE SO.


WHAT, EXACTLY, is my SUPPOSED 'perspective', which you are here CLAIMING I am CONTRADICTING?


'What' WAS a word I USED to, HOPEFULLY, GAIN CLARITY FROM you in regards to some SPECIFIC 'thing'. I was just asking for information SPECIFYING some 'thing'.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' are NOT going to GET ANY ACTUAL CLARITY, FROM 'you' here.

1. And what do you mean by "proof"?

'That' what establishes a Fact or the Truth.

Do you have a DIFFERENT meaning for the 'proof' word?

2. You are.

Okay. Do you have 'proof' of THIS CLAIM of YOURS here?

Prove your own knowledge and post a thread of your own, otherwise you are just making questions of the wrong contexts and assertions of your own opinion.

If this is JUST what I am doing here, TO you, then okay.

3. Projection on your part, we are not gaining clarity from you or your questions.

I HOPE you are NOT GAINING CLARITY FROM 'questions'.

I FOUND CLARITY COMES FROM 'answers', INSTEAD.

1. And what is a fact or truth?

2. Proof is relative to the observer thus always exists and does not exist.

3. So do you know the answers to your own questions?

[Age]

1. And what do you mean by "proof"?

'That' what establishes a Fact or the Truth.

Do you have a DIFFERENT meaning for the 'proof' word?

2. You are.

Okay. Do you have 'proof' of THIS CLAIM of YOURS here?

Prove your own knowledge and post a thread of your own, otherwise you are just making questions of the wrong contexts and assertions of your own opinion.

If this is JUST what I am doing here, TO you, then okay.

3. Projection on your part, we are not gaining clarity from you or your questions.

I HOPE you are NOT GAINING CLARITY FROM 'questions'.

I FOUND CLARITY COMES FROM 'answers', INSTEAD.

1. And what is a fact or truth?

'That', which can NOT be refuted.

2. Proof is relative to the observer thus always exists and does not exist.

So, OBVIOUSLY, 'we' can NOT get ANYWHERE 'reasonable' here.

3. So do you know the answers to your own questions?

Which ones, SPECIFICALLY?

[Eodnhoj7]

'That' what establishes a Fact or the Truth.

Do you have a DIFFERENT meaning for the 'proof' word?


Okay. Do you have 'proof' of THIS CLAIM of YOURS here?


If this is JUST what I am doing here, TO you, then okay.


I HOPE you are NOT GAINING CLARITY FROM 'questions'.

I FOUND CLARITY COMES FROM 'answers', INSTEAD.

1. And what is a fact or truth?

'That', which can NOT be refuted.

2. Proof is relative to the observer thus always exists and does not exist.

So, OBVIOUSLY, 'we' can NOT get ANYWHERE 'reasonable' here.

3. So do you know the answers to your own questions?

Which ones, SPECIFICALLY?

1. And what do you mean by cannot be refuted?

2. Seeing both sides of the coin, truth and untruth, is entirely rational.

3. All of them.

[Age]

1. And what is a fact or truth?

'That', which can NOT be refuted.

2. Proof is relative to the observer thus always exists and does not exist.

So, OBVIOUSLY, 'we' can NOT get ANYWHERE 'reasonable' here.

3. So do you know the answers to your own questions?

Which ones, SPECIFICALLY?

1. And what do you mean by cannot be refuted?

Can NOT be proved to be False NOR Wrong. Disproved.

2. Seeing both sides of the coin, truth and untruth, is entirely rational.

Okay, BUT the SAME STILL applies.

3. All of them.

OBVIOUSLY NO.

SOME QUESTIONS I ASK, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY the one I ASK would KNOW the ANSWER/S to.

[Eodnhoj7]

'That', which can NOT be refuted.


So, OBVIOUSLY, 'we' can NOT get ANYWHERE 'reasonable' here.


Which ones, SPECIFICALLY?

1. And what do you mean by cannot be refuted?

Can NOT be proved to be False NOR Wrong. Disproved.

2. Seeing both sides of the coin, truth and untruth, is entirely rational.

Okay, BUT the SAME STILL applies.

3. All of them.

OBVIOUSLY NO.

SOME QUESTIONS I ASK, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY the one I ASK would KNOW the ANSWER/S to.

1. And what is falsity?

2. How do you know your questions have answers?

[Age]

1. And what do you mean by cannot be refuted?

Can NOT be proved to be False NOR Wrong. Disproved.

2. Seeing both sides of the coin, truth and untruth, is entirely rational.

Okay, BUT the SAME STILL applies.

3. All of them.

OBVIOUSLY NO.

SOME QUESTIONS I ASK, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY the one I ASK would KNOW the ANSWER/S to.

1. And what is falsity?

Being not, or un, true.

2. How do you know your questions have answers?

BECAUSE for EVERY QUESTION there IS AN ANSWER.

Were you NOT YET AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

[Eodnhoj7]

Can NOT be proved to be False NOR Wrong. Disproved.


Okay, BUT the SAME STILL applies.


OBVIOUSLY NO.

SOME QUESTIONS I ASK, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY the one I ASK would KNOW the ANSWER/S to.

1. And what is falsity?

Being not, or un, true.

2. How do you know your questions have answers?

BECAUSE for EVERY QUESTION there IS AN ANSWER.

Were you NOT YET AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

1. So a person who is not an athlete is false (i.e. "being not" an athlete)?

2. I asked "how" not "if" every question had an answer...you did not answer my question. What is your proof that for every question there is an answer?

[Age]

1. And what is falsity?

Being not, or un, true.

2. How do you know your questions have answers?

BECAUSE for EVERY QUESTION there IS AN ANSWER.

Were you NOT YET AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

1. So a person who is not an athlete is false (i.e. "being not" an athlete)?

LOL you OBVIOUSLY did NOT READ the WHOLE sentence. Or you just did NOT COMPREHEND, NOR UNDERSTAND, my sentence, because what you ASKED here is beyond ABSURDITY.

2. I asked "how" not "if" every question had an answer..

LOL
LOL
LOL

NO you DID NOT.

you ACTUALLY ASKED, HOW DO I KNOW my QUESTIONS HAVE ANSWERS.

AND, I ANSWERED 'THAT QUESTION'.

Now do you ALSO find it FUNNY that you can NOT even COPY your VERY OWN QUESTIONS, and QUESTIONING, Correctly?

.you did not answer my question.

LOL YES I DID. Just LOOK ABOVE HERE.

What is your proof that for every question there is an answer?

The WAY words AND language WORKS.

And

The THINKING within human bodies.

[Eodnhoj7]

Being not, or un, true.


BECAUSE for EVERY QUESTION there IS AN ANSWER.

Were you NOT YET AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

1. So a person who is not an athlete is false (i.e. "being not" an athlete)?

LOL you OBVIOUSLY did NOT READ the WHOLE sentence. Or you just did NOT COMPREHEND, NOR UNDERSTAND, my sentence, because what you ASKED here is beyond ABSURDITY.

2. I asked "how" not "if" every question had an answer..

LOL
LOL
LOL

NO you DID NOT.

you ACTUALLY ASKED, HOW DO I KNOW my QUESTIONS HAVE ANSWERS.

AND, I ANSWERED 'THAT QUESTION'.

Now do you ALSO find it FUNNY that you can NOT even COPY your VERY OWN QUESTIONS, and QUESTIONING, Correctly?

.you did not answer my question.

LOL YES I DID. Just LOOK ABOVE HERE.

What is your proof that for every question there is an answer?

The WAY words AND language WORKS.

And

The THINKING within human bodies.

1. You resorting to me misreading your sentence is an absurd point to make as all things are relative thus resulting in the perspective that you may not know how to express yourself; if I misread then it can be said that it is because you are a poor writer.

2. Facepalm, I said "how not if" and your response was that I asked "how do you know your questions have answers?"

So how do you know your questions have answers?

3. And what is the way words and language works? What is thinking?

[Atla]

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

Probably have to use circular logic on the real-world universe, on the universal scale. Has little to no bearing on how we use non-universal logics in our little everyday human corner of the universe, or how we use abstract logics in general.

[Age]

1. So a person who is not an athlete is false (i.e. "being not" an athlete)?

LOL you OBVIOUSLY did NOT READ the WHOLE sentence. Or you just did NOT COMPREHEND, NOR UNDERSTAND, my sentence, because what you ASKED here is beyond ABSURDITY.

2. I asked "how" not "if" every question had an answer..

LOL
LOL
LOL

NO you DID NOT.

you ACTUALLY ASKED, HOW DO I KNOW my QUESTIONS HAVE ANSWERS.

AND, I ANSWERED 'THAT QUESTION'.

Now do you ALSO find it FUNNY that you can NOT even COPY your VERY OWN QUESTIONS, and QUESTIONING, Correctly?

.you did not answer my question.

LOL YES I DID. Just LOOK ABOVE HERE.

What is your proof that for every question there is an answer?

The WAY words AND language WORKS.

And

The THINKING within human bodies.

1. You resorting to me misreading your sentence is an absurd point to make as all things are relative thus resulting in the perspective that you may not know how to express yourself; if I misread then it can be said that it is because you are a poor writer.

OF COURSE.

If and WHEN ANY one MISREADS what I WRITE, then IT IS SOLELY BECAUSE OF 'me'.

Thus the REASON WHY I AM STILL in the process of LEARNING HOW TO COMMUNICATE BETTER, with 'you', human beings.

I thought 'this' was A GIVEN, and especially considering since I have been CONTINUALLY STATING the EXACT SAME 'thing'.

If ANY one is MISREADING 'me', then it IS BECAUSE I have NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO COMMUNICATE, SUFFICIENTLY, WITH 'THAT one'.

2. Facepalm, I said "how not if" and your response was that I asked "how do you know your questions have answers?"

Did 'you' ASK, 'how', NOT, 'if', OR, did 'you' ASK, 'how not if'?

So how do you know your questions have answers?

BECAUSE FOR EVERY QUESTION THERE IS AN ANSWER.

That IS HOW I KNOW my, and ALL, questions HAVE answers.

3. And what is the way words and language works?

BOTH of 'them' WORK TO COMMUNICATE the ideas and views WITHIN one body to ANOTHER body.

What is thinking?

A process of 'thought', itself.

[roydop]

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

Delusion arises from the belief that logic actually refers to the physical realm of the senses. Thought is a non-physical realm ("mind") that is not causally related to the physical realm. The shift from paying attention to sensations to paying attention to thoughts, is the goal of Maya, and her tool is symbol and language.

Logic is a mechanism through which thought is generated. That's all it is. It's a photocopier that just churns out thought. Mathematics is the most effective mechanism through which to produce thought, ever developed. And it has nothing to do with the realm of the senses