I’ve been saying that since I joined this forum.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:20 pm
...hence God as typeless reflects "no God" through this typeless nature as being true in the respect God is beyond existence and as being beyond existence reflects no existence.
God is beyond being, and in these respects is beyond "nothing" and "being" and as such is both.
The negation of the self is a standard core of buddhism, martial arts a means of it hence exist as part of the core considering the negation of the self is a typeless definition that extends to the nature of martial arts or warfare as part of the individual.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:08 amYou are blabbering out of point here.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:58 pmIt is not a core, but many practice it without contradiction to there faith hence the faith allows it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:11 am
If martial arts is the core practice of Buddhism, then ALL Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists would have adopted martial arts. But in reality that is not the case.
Pacifism is illogical as it cancels itself out in the face of violence and any stance against violence necessitates an enforcement against it..
Warmongering is illogical as it just cancels itself out over time and is predicated on some form of peace (pacifism) being derived from it.
What counts is within the "constitution" and no where else.
In the case of Buddhism, its constitution is represented by the core principles taught by Buddha, e.g.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Even it is allowed in certain places but if martial arts is not a core of Buddhism, then you cannot ascribe it as a standard practice of Buddhism.
Note the majority of Buddhists pray to statutes of Buddha and the monks allow it, but this is not a core of Buddhism. The Buddha do not agree with asceticism but many monks practice it without any one banning it.
Thus it is critical you need to understand the core principles of Buddhism and should not be swayed by its fringe and variable practices.
My original point is Buddhism directly addresses the psychological impulses [zombie parasites] that compel theists to cling to an illusory God [which is responsible for terrible evil acts beside good] which in turn generate more sufferings to the individuals and humanity.
Buddhism is dynamic and understand there are all sort of people thus allows for variations within its core principles.
Does "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" mean that the whole of set zn is greater than the parts of it and that therefore the whole of set zn does not pertain to set zn?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:51 pm The negation of self is a standard theme in just about every ideology. Only it's narrated/expressed differently. It's an appeal to holism - think big! Bigger than yourself.
Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians and Muslims : Too many gods to count!
Western philosophy: The Greater Good (morality).
Present day: Humanism (symbolised by society and its institutions).
Systems theory: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The statement simply points to the phenomenon of emergence in dynamic systems. Because of the interaction between the parts the system as a whole exhibits behaviors/properties that one could not have inferred from looking at understanding the individual components.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:31 am There is no ostensive definition for 'void' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition ).
Still the signifier 'void' signifies the CONCEPT of 'nothing' in your head.
It is a useful concept! So useful that it's used across disciplines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null
Yes, I argue(d) in the above, that the definition of void is a contradiction. All contradiction is an opposition of parts through a dualistic multiplicity. Hence what we understand of "void", through being, is inversion as equivalent to Void where any "equivalence" between these definitions (which further have a typeless nature and are contradictory in themselves) resulting in "equivalance" as a definitive boundary in itself that while "existing" by directing itself through typeless definitions of "inversion" and "void" (typless in the respect of there relation to another) it transcends beyond existence itself as merely being an approximate(random)/potential/possibility of the definitions it connects.
I may have to elaborate on these concepts above as they may make little sense upon first reading, or I did not word them right.
At this point one would ask: do concepts exist?
Red herring of a question! If you and I agree that we know how to use the word 'nothing' - the fact that 'nothing' doesn't exist is not a problem. The same thing goes for other words. Like 'truth', 'belief', 'faith', 'morality'. I have absolutely no idea how to answer the question "do you believe in X"? What the fuck does that even mean? You might as well have asked me: "Do you ogashum in preflucop?". I have no idea what you are asking me! In fact - I vehemently refuse to discuss metaphysics unless absolutely necessary.
But you see, to observe the red herring:
1) Is in itself a redherring.
2) However as a redherring, where the argument is directed away from an original source premise or intended nature, all axioms have inherent red-herring contradictory nature within them as one axiom is diverted to another. All axioms, and arguments as axioms, are red-herrings.
3) The redherring represents a point of inversion from one axiom/argument as an axiom to another axiom/argument as axiom.
4) The redherring fallacy, and the axiom/argument as an axiom, are redherrings in themselves and as such "diversion" takes on a necessary role of directing the argument. The red herring takes on an integral role in the axiom(s) progressing to further axiom(s) and as such is an axiom. The problem occurs, considering the nature of the redherring is fundamentally "void" of meaning in the respect is observes an inversion of one axiom/axiom set to many axiom/axiom sets, the "void" negates itself leaving everything existing as having truth or some degree of it.
5) All axioms, as points of origin, are dually everything and nothing. Under these terms there is no "concept" and there is no "materiality" either but rather everything observed exists as is. So while discussions of metaphysics are "void" the application of material construction is void as well as the manipulation of ideas results in a manipulation of materiality, while the manipulation of materiality is a manipulation of ideas.
Considering void is an observation of relation, and not a thing in itself but rather an observation of multiplicity as an absence of unity as structure, the axiom exists as connected to all axioms as an axiom in itself. Self-evidence (axiom) is existence.
6) Metaphysics, as being through being, observes metaphysics as another definition in the respect it applies to everything, with the being que being nature of metaphysics necessitating a from of reflectivity as the repitition of axioms which in turn forms further axioms. Metaphysics is a conceptualization of the active process of reflection/mirroring/repitition found in material and abstract axioms.
There is no ostensive definition for God either. One might say 'omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient' - but those words don't have ostensive definitions either.
And if you attempted to define them you are just going to encounter some other concept which has no ostensive definition. Recursion(Recursion(...))
Suffice to say that every definition of 'God' I have ever encountered recurses to NULL (void).
And that is the answer to a definition of God, where God can not be limited to definition alone in one respect except as a continuum of definitions necessitating a point/linear/circular nature as such.
Under these terms God as Being is God as directed movement through this continuum as a process of infinite self-reflection (as continual directed movement) as infinite directed movement as a constant. We are left with basic geometric axioms as the foundation for God, with these axioms progressing in both function and form in orders with the axioms themselves (expanding circularity through linear progression and circular maintainance, with all axioms being points or origins for further axioms).
In these respects definition is given to God (and the nature of man and consciousness as an extension of God), with these definition while giving foundational aspects of existence allowing for God existing beyond definition simultaneously. In these respects God is conducive to a point of origin.
If you are going to define God give me Extensional, intensional or Genus-differential definition. Please. And if God is to be found in metaphysics - let’s just leave this topic aside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension ... definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2% ... definition
It is also an appeal to relativism as well considering the "void" nature of being, observed in the multiplicity of being, necessitates a point of inversion conducive to the 0d point.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:51 pm The negation of self is a standard theme in just about every ideology. Only it's narrated/expressed differently. It's an appeal to holism - think big! Bigger than yourself.
Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians and Muslims : Too many gods to count!
Western philosophy: The Greater Good (morality).
Present day: Humanism (symbolised by society and its institutions).
Systems theory: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The above reflect you do not understand the core principles of Buddhism.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:25 pmThe negation of the self is a standard core of buddhism, martial arts a means of it hence exist as part of the core considering the negation of the self is a typeless definition that extends to the nature of martial arts or warfare as part of the individual.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:08 amYou are blabbering out of point here.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:58 pm
It is not a core, but many practice it without contradiction to there faith hence the faith allows it.
Pacifism is illogical as it cancels itself out in the face of violence and any stance against violence necessitates an enforcement against it..
Warmongering is illogical as it just cancels itself out over time and is predicated on some form of peace (pacifism) being derived from it.
What counts is within the "constitution" and no where else.
In the case of Buddhism, its constitution is represented by the core principles taught by Buddha, e.g.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Even it is allowed in certain places but if martial arts is not a core of Buddhism, then you cannot ascribe it as a standard practice of Buddhism.
Note the majority of Buddhists pray to statutes of Buddha and the monks allow it, but this is not a core of Buddhism. The Buddha do not agree with asceticism but many monks practice it without any one banning it.
Thus it is critical you need to understand the core principles of Buddhism and should not be swayed by its fringe and variable practices.
My original point is Buddhism directly addresses the psychological impulses [zombie parasites] that compel theists to cling to an illusory God [which is responsible for terrible evil acts beside good] which in turn generate more sufferings to the individuals and humanity.
Buddhism is dynamic and understand there are all sort of people thus allows for variations within its core principles.
The above is off tangent and irrelevant to the points raised.The highest form of warfare is not against one's neighbor but the darkness of ignorance, but this does not negate that one is allowed to defend themselves. One who has truly mastered the self, such as buddha, does not need to physically fight for physical confrontation is still a result of ignorance.
The only true sin is ignorance and this is a cross we all have to carry for ourselves and eachother. The simple truth is regardless of whether the muslim is right or wrong is irrelevant as people are born into there conditions. If the muslim is right then those born into a non-muslim state are wrong. If the muslim is wrong then he is born into a condition of ignorance. Either way man exists in evil, but is not evil. Neither is he good. Man is Man and the judgements he forms forms him/her.
Who can rightfully judge his fellow man, the source from which judgement comes? To judge him would be to place him in a box, take away his God given right to create from nothingness his own destiny. It takes away his right to form a star through the abyss of nothingness, with that star only being the judgements he forms reality through.
We are our own judge, jury and executioners...this was given to us by God through God for we are all son's and daughter's of the Divine Creator. We are all part, a meaningful part, of a Divine Plan. And whether one is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist...it does not matter: We all matter, for the condition of man is one of meaning and purpose.
You are wrong because your ruthlessness is weak for truth ruthlessness is cold objectivity. This cold objectivity observes even hatred itself is mere nothingness and the only truth to being is a sense of order that stems from unity embodied through mercy.
Your hatred is weak and because it is weak it is false. If you truly hate, down to your core to the point it consumes you and burns you from the inside out as a true form of torment and agony, you would not hate your brother muslim, christian, buddhist, or atheist who are the children of God.
Instead you would hate ignorance and hatred itself...for these are the powers of darkness which all men must suffer through including me. It is this suffering through the darkness that mankind takes his rightful place as a god through God for man is justified by the judgements which form him. They are his creation and we are judged by the judgement we make.
I am proof God exists. You are proof God exists. Mankind is proof God exists. And it does not matter whether one is a saint or sinner, but rather that fact we can choose to be a saint or sinner which gives man a dignified place as "meaningful".
The exact same logic science uses.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:55 am I exists.
You exists
Therefore God exists.
What kind of logic is that?
Mystical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:55 amWhat kind of logic is that?
- I exists.
You exists
Therefore God exists.
"Its objective is not the acquisition of an end, but a participating in it. Participation, in a word, becomes not simply an alternative to knowledge – it altogether supersedes it. At best, “knowing”, to the mystic, is penultimate [next to the last] to “being”. In a larger sense, within the concept of participation the implicit distinction between the “knower” and the “known”, a distinction otherwise constituting one of the most fundamental epistemological premises, becomes effectively superfluous." -- Geoffrey K. Mondello, The Metaphysics of Mysticism
Actually the core principles of Buddhism are not clearly defined and subject to the fallacy of equivocation, as evidenced by its many schools and metaphysics systems over time. It is subject to entropy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:55 amThe above reflect you do not understand the core principles of Buddhism.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:25 pmThe negation of the self is a standard core of buddhism, martial arts a means of it hence exist as part of the core considering the negation of the self is a typeless definition that extends to the nature of martial arts or warfare as part of the individual.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:08 am
You are blabbering out of point here.
What counts is within the "constitution" and no where else.
In the case of Buddhism, its constitution is represented by the core principles taught by Buddha, e.g.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Even it is allowed in certain places but if martial arts is not a core of Buddhism, then you cannot ascribe it as a standard practice of Buddhism.
Note the majority of Buddhists pray to statutes of Buddha and the monks allow it, but this is not a core of Buddhism. The Buddha do not agree with asceticism but many monks practice it without any one banning it.
Thus it is critical you need to understand the core principles of Buddhism and should not be swayed by its fringe and variable practices.
My original point is Buddhism directly addresses the psychological impulses [zombie parasites] that compel theists to cling to an illusory God [which is responsible for terrible evil acts beside good] which in turn generate more sufferings to the individuals and humanity.
Buddhism is dynamic and understand there are all sort of people thus allows for variations within its core principles.
There are many perspectives to 'what is self' within Buddhism.
Buddhism negates the transcendental self that is claimed to exists after physical death, i.e. commonly known as a soul that can live eternally in a heaven.
Buddhism does not negate the empirical self, i.e. the physical and mental self of a living person which the Buddha advocated should live within the Middle Way.
The above is off tangent and irrelevant to the points raised.The highest form of warfare is not against one's neighbor but the darkness of ignorance, but this does not negate that one is allowed to defend themselves. One who has truly mastered the self, such as buddha, does not need to physically fight for physical confrontation is still a result of ignorance.
The only true sin is ignorance and this is a cross we all have to carry for ourselves and eachother. The simple truth is regardless of whether the muslim is right or wrong is irrelevant as people are born into there conditions. If the muslim is right then those born into a non-muslim state are wrong. If the muslim is wrong then he is born into a condition of ignorance. Either way man exists in evil, but is not evil. Neither is he good. Man is Man and the judgements he forms forms him/her.
Who can rightfully judge his fellow man, the source from which judgement comes? To judge him would be to place him in a box, take away his God given right to create from nothingness his own destiny. It takes away his right to form a star through the abyss of nothingness, with that star only being the judgements he forms reality through.
We are our own judge, jury and executioners...this was given to us by God through God for we are all son's and daughter's of the Divine Creator. We are all part, a meaningful part, of a Divine Plan. And whether one is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist...it does not matter: We all matter, for the condition of man is one of meaning and purpose.
You are wrong because your ruthlessness is weak for truth ruthlessness is cold objectivity. This cold objectivity observes even hatred itself is mere nothingness and the only truth to being is a sense of order that stems from unity embodied through mercy.
Your hatred is weak and because it is weak it is false. If you truly hate, down to your core to the point it consumes you and burns you from the inside out as a true form of torment and agony, you would not hate your brother muslim, christian, buddhist, or atheist who are the children of God.
Instead you would hate ignorance and hatred itself...for these are the powers of darkness which all men must suffer through including me. It is this suffering through the darkness that mankind takes his rightful place as a god through God for man is justified by the judgements which form him. They are his creation and we are judged by the judgement we make.
You need to focus more strongly to keep to topic.
I am proof God exists. You are proof God exists. Mankind is proof God exists. And it does not matter whether one is a saint or sinner, but rather that fact we can choose to be a saint or sinner which gives man a dignified place as "meaningful".What kind of logic is that?
- I exists.
You exists
Therefore God exists.
In context of phenomenology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomeno ... hilosophy) ) the process of bracketing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketin ... omenology) ) is how one produces words.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:20 pmIn context of phenomenology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomeno ... hilosophy) ) the process of bracketing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketin ... omenology) ) is how one produces words.
Yes, true.
People accuse me of rhetoric, or sophism, whether I use English or mathematics (I developed an algebraic expression for time about a year ago and the accusation still applied...to math above all things.)
There stance is false and it points to what your are saying above.
The process of bracketing, while observed in the process of words, appears to all phenomena in general. Where the standard phenomenologist uses phenomena, I use the word axiom for several reasons.
1) A phenomena is just another word for being, that as far as I am aware, is not limited to being in any empirical sense of the word but includes abstract phenomena as well. This nature of empirical/abstractness observes an inherent element of consciousness connected to the nature of the phenomena.
2) Ignoring point 1 briefly, the axiom refers to self evidently true. The root of the word "ax" is a root for axis and axle, both words referring to centerpoints. An axiom, as self evident truth, can be argued as a center point of awareness for all awareness begins with with some truth. Hence truth exists as a point of origin. Even people who base there lives arounded lies, which is the relative contradiction (inherent opposition) or twisting (inversion by looking at it from a seperate angle leading to contradiction) of truth still necessitates a foundational truth to exist; hence axiom still exists as a center point from which the person's perspective takes place.
3) Now looking at both point 1 and 2. The axiom is a center point of truth from which a perspective manifests. It is a phenomena of origin that observes a connection between subjective and objective states necessitating consciousness as both subjective and objective in the respect they are intertwined. The subjective no-limit state exists through objective limits, the objective limited state exists through the subjective no-limit. The foundation of consciousness, due to the intertwined nature of limit and no limit, observed a foundation in limit and no limit.
The axiom, as a point of origin for truth due to its subjective/objective nature, is a point of origin for both limit and no limit for we can observe that truth itself necessitates a dualism of that which is bracketed, given structure through limit as complex limits, and not bracketed, no structure as no limit.
The process of bracketing, observed in phenomenology, is an application of limit or "objectivity" where the subjective state of not limit as no bracketing is contained.
4) THE axiom as a point of origin to both limit and no limit, observes origin and point inseperable for the nature of perspective as bracketing/limiting and not bracketing/not limiting neccessitates both limit and no limit coming from the point acting as origin.
In simpler terms all axioms exist as points, with consciousness and its ability to apply and exist through limits coming from this same point.
The point is the foundation of consciousness, along with the limits which manifest from both the point and consciousness as well. The line, as definition through seperation/connection, is the second third of consciousness. The circle, as power through maintainance/dissolution of phenomena, is the final third.
The axiom contains a tri-fold nature of origin, definition and power in these respects. All axioms are extensions of consciousness as consciuoussness.
5) All phenomena existing as axiomatic, observes all phenomena as having a tri-fold nature of origin/definition/power through the inherent limits/no limits in which they exist through the point/line and circle. With this being said, all axioms are points of origin that exist through and of other points of origin as extensions of a point of origin with this being a point of origin in itself.
6. Due to point five, all axioms through the language (qualitatively as grammar or quantitatively as math) observe all symbols as points of origin for all other symbols with the symbol giving foundation to not just language as complex symbols but the point/line/circle as the foundation for all symbols as symbols in themselves while not limited to such a nature.
7. As a point of origin the symbol observes a connection to all symbols where all symbols as axiom are connected as one due to there bracketing/limiting nature. Simultaneously, all symbols and axioms are nothing due to there nature of no limit and exist merely as points of inversion.
The axiom is both everything and unity through pure limit as pure being, while dually being void and multiplicitous in nature through no limit as inversion.
8. So in bracketing a phenomena, with this bracketing simply an extension of putting limits to a phenomena by localizing it, a problem occurs in respect to a dualism. In being clear on one axiom, causes an ambiguity in another with cleverness being that with limit and ambiguity as that with no limit. Hence all axioms as both are inherently neutral in value and exist for what they are as a perpetual synthesis.
The axiom as structural and absolute originates a causal nature in the respect all cause is an observation of structure which all effect being an a cause/structure in itself that is approximate to its original causes. However as a cause in itself, all cause is an ever present medium or origin which exists through randomness as absence of strucuture...Hence the variation in axioms while both are from the same causal source.
The axiom as actual locality and relative to other localities observes a definitive nature where the axiom is composed of and composing further axioms through a process of individuation as the axiom inverts between one and many therefore it a causal in nature. The axiom as localized exists through its alternation with potential localization as formlessness.
9. The absolute and relativistic nature of axioms are symmetrical, and as dual observe a synthetic nature (cycling back to the original premises while expanding definition) of limit and no limit.
10. The nature of self evidence as limit and no limit observes all man as extension of one universal axiom (God, Divine Plan, Reason) while acting through this source as co creators in themselves.
You "isolated" a phenomenon from the overall context of your perception and you give it a name. You've drawn a line...
Yes, with this isolation giving defintion through separating/connecting phenomena while maintaining/dissolving them.
Logocentrists (such as Veritas Aeaquitas) don't know how to think in phenomenological experiences, and how it's entirely possible for two people to call the same experiential phenomenon by two different names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
Yes we all come from the same God and as such we are measured according to the measurements we create.
The experiential nature of reason cannot be ignored for in the application of reason to form A new perspective/world we are constructing new experiences as well.
And that is the paradox, for all knowledge has a dual intuitive and rational nature due to the subjective/objective state through which it exists. Intuition leads to reason. Reason leads to intuition. Both maintain eachother and consistently synthesize and expand to where "existence just is" and the question of being aware is less of a continual expansion of consciousness but rather lucidity where existence is clear originated,defined,maintained for what it is...with that comes progression.
Any scientist knows why asking direct yes/no questions leads to bad science and confirmation bias (falsification principle!) and yet philosophers are happy to draw conclusions form a loaded question like “Do you believe in God?”.
And my answer would be Yes,No and Maybe with any religious man if he is to be honest having the same answer.
The game is rigged. The best strategy is to not play!
Transcend the game, let it choose its own course it has that right...but it is not my right to be enslaved to it.
Veritas can go on forforever if he wishes, he is just giving me ideological chaos to mold and form.
As far as others are concerned my metaphysical beliefs are in superposition!
Go ahead and figure them out empirically...
I am waiting for an empirical proof of "proof" that does not lead to infinity being a necessary element of being...having seen one yet because it would put the physicists as the modern theocracy of our days out of work.