"Being" as Unconditional

[Age]

1. I just did.

You just, supposedly, did 'what', EXACTLY?

2. Because it shows you are chasing after nothing when asking the question "so what?"

But I am NOT chasing after nothing. That is just a Truly ABSURD Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

What I am seeking, from YOU, is SOME 'thing'.

1. What I just did.

Which was?

2. The totality of being is indefinite as there is no contrast, thingness is relative and as relative is transient; you are chasing after the transient and in doing so are chasing your tail thus going nowhere. In going no-where you seek nothing.

I am NOT chasing after the transient. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR ABSURD ASSUMPTION here is Wrong ALSO.

And, your ATTEMPTS to now 'try to' "justify" your previous claims is NOT working.

[puto]

Bishop George Berkeley, circa 1685-1753 CE,

The Basic Argument: (1) Matter was only known to us by its sensible qualities. (2) It was impossible to describe, or even imagine matter without these qualities. (3) Absence of sensible qualities, matter, by definition, loses its essential qualities

. Work Cited Bishop Berkeley, George. Complete Works of George Berkeley,

Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,

Oxford Clarendon Press, 1901 CE. Digital. Accessed 4/15/2022 CE.
Bishop George Berkeley upheld,

that sensible qualities were not inherent in matter. But, ascribed and understood by the mind,

Work Cited Bishop Berkeley, George. Complete Works of George Berkeley,

Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,

Oxford Clarendon Press, 1901 CE. Digital. Accessed 4/15/2022 CE.
The man was a genius and that Idealism: All external reality disappears, and it proceeds directly from him. Work Cited Bishop Berkeley, George. Complete Works of George Berkeley,

Berkeley by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,

'Lectures on the History of Philosophy', Translated by Elizabeth Sanderson Haldane, Delphi Classics, 2019 CE, Accessed 4/15/2022 CE, Digital.
Hylas, "...The substance and its qualities being entirely unknown to me." Phil, "What? You are then of opinion..." Lol. Have fun with that quote.

[promethean75]

vamos, puto. berkeley era un loco que creía que los árboles que caían no hacían ruido a menos que los escucharas.


.

[Eodnhoj7]

You just, supposedly, did 'what', EXACTLY?


But I am NOT chasing after nothing. That is just a Truly ABSURD Wrong ASSUMPTION of YOURS.

What I am seeking, from YOU, is SOME 'thing'.

1. What I just did.

Which was?

2. The totality of being is indefinite as there is no contrast, thingness is relative and as relative is transient; you are chasing after the transient and in doing so are chasing your tail thus going nowhere. In going no-where you seek nothing.

I am NOT chasing after the transient. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR ABSURD ASSUMPTION here is Wrong ALSO.

And, your ATTEMPTS to now 'try to' "justify" your previous claims is NOT working.

1. That.

2. Yes you are as chasing after a thing is chasing after that which is relative. Reality is not a thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Bishop George Berkeley, circa 1685-1753 CE,

The Basic Argument: (1) Matter was only known to us by its sensible qualities. (2) It was impossible to describe, or even imagine matter without these qualities. (3) Absence of sensible qualities, matter, by definition, loses its essential qualities

. Work Cited Bishop Berkeley, George. Complete Works of George Berkeley,

Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,

Oxford Clarendon Press, 1901 CE. Digital. Accessed 4/15/2022 CE.
Bishop George Berkeley upheld,

that sensible qualities were not inherent in matter. But, ascribed and understood by the mind,

Work Cited Bishop Berkeley, George. Complete Works of George Berkeley,

Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,

Oxford Clarendon Press, 1901 CE. Digital. Accessed 4/15/2022 CE.
The man was a genius and that Idealism: All external reality disappears, and it proceeds directly from him. Work Cited Bishop Berkeley, George. Complete Works of George Berkeley,

Berkeley by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,

'Lectures on the History of Philosophy', Translated by Elizabeth Sanderson Haldane, Delphi Classics, 2019 CE, Accessed 4/15/2022 CE, Digital.
Hylas, "...The substance and its qualities being entirely unknown to me." Phil, "What? You are then of opinion..." Lol. Have fun with that quote.

Matter is form.

[Age]

1. What I just did.

Which was?

2. The totality of being is indefinite as there is no contrast, thingness is relative and as relative is transient; you are chasing after the transient and in doing so are chasing your tail thus going nowhere. In going no-where you seek nothing.

I am NOT chasing after the transient. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR ABSURD ASSUMPTION here is Wrong ALSO.

And, your ATTEMPTS to now 'try to' "justify" your previous claims is NOT working.

1. That.

2. Yes you are as chasing after a thing is chasing after that which is relative. Reality is not a thing.

23. Not sufficient.

82. If you say so.

[popeye1945]

Eod,
Is what you are trying to say that the biological subject/consciousness is the knower of the world, the eyes, ears, and consciousness of the world, as the only means by which the physical world comes to knows itself?

[Eodnhoj7]

Which was?


I am NOT chasing after the transient. So, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR ABSURD ASSUMPTION here is Wrong ALSO.

And, your ATTEMPTS to now 'try to' "justify" your previous claims is NOT working.

1. That.

2. Yes you are as chasing after a thing is chasing after that which is relative. Reality is not a thing.

23. Not sufficient.

82. If you say so.

1. "Not sufficient" is relative.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eod,
Is what you are trying to say that the biological subject/consciousness is the knower of the world, the eyes, ears, and consciousness of the world, as the only means by which the physical world comes to knows itself?

No, what I am saying is the being occurs through context. This necessitates a context within a context as a context, etc. This self-referentiality of context leaves context obscure. Considering being occurs through context this leaves being obscure as well. Being is thus indefinite and as indefinite is not premised on conditions.

[Age]

1. That.

2. Yes you are as chasing after a thing is chasing after that which is relative. Reality is not a thing.

23. Not sufficient.

82. If you say so.

1. "Not sufficient" is relative.

Can you name one 'thing' that is NOT relative?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[popeye1945]

Eod,
Is what you are trying to say that the biological subject/consciousness is the knower of the world, the eyes, ears, and consciousness of the world, as the only means by which the physical world comes to knows itself?

No, what I am saying is the being occurs through context. This necessitates a context within a context as a context, etc. This self-referentiality of context leaves context obscure. Considering being occurs through context this leaves being obscure as well. Being is thus indefinite and as indefinite is not premised on conditions.

Eodnhoj7.
You are not making sense to me. Contexts are like categories we divided things up into smaller portions or draw a circle around what we wish to understand due to humanity's limited mental ability to understand the totality, that being the actual context. Seeing that the earth is an open system the context/totality is unknown if the universe itself is open, this we do not know. When an organism is born into the world it has no identity it is acquired through moving through the physical world experiencing feeling thinking knowing and acquiring an identity thus. It seems to me you put to much emphasis upon imaginary lines, do you imagine that the myriad of thus defined contexts are all supportive of life. I guess what I am trying to say is, what is the point of your argument. If it is that fact that the physical world/object is necessary for the existence of the subject that has been establish a very long time ago. If I am confused please enlighten. " Think subject and object stand or fall together." Schopenhauer

[Dontaskme]

Can you name one 'thing' that is NOT relative?

There's no such 'thing' as 'Not relative'.

Not relative is relative.

[Age]

Can you name one 'thing' that is NOT relative?

There's no such 'thing' as 'Not relative'.

Not relative is relative.

I asked that question for a very specific reason. Which you have now just made VERY CLEAR.

[Eodnhoj7]

23. Not sufficient.

82. If you say so.

1. "Not sufficient" is relative.

Can you name one 'thing' that is NOT relative?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

The absence of thingness which occurs universally and is unchanging as there is no-thing to change.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eod,
Is what you are trying to say that the biological subject/consciousness is the knower of the world, the eyes, ears, and consciousness of the world, as the only means by which the physical world comes to knows itself?

No, what I am saying is the being occurs through context. This necessitates a context within a context as a context, etc. This self-referentiality of context leaves context obscure. Considering being occurs through context this leaves being obscure as well. Being is thus indefinite and as indefinite is not premised on conditions.

Eodnhoj7.
You are not making sense to me. Contexts are like categories we divided things up into smaller portions or draw a circle around what we wish to understand due to humanity's limited mental ability to understand the totality, that being the actual context. Seeing that the earth is an open system the context/totality is unknown if the universe itself is open, this we do not know. When an organism is born into the world it has no identity it is acquired through moving through the physical world experiencing feeling thinking knowing and acquiring an identity thus. It seems to me you put to much emphasis upon imaginary lines, do you imagine that the myriad of thus defined contexts are all supportive of life. I guess what I am trying to say is, what is the point of your argument. If it is that fact that the physical world/object is necessary for the existence of the subject that has been establish a very long time ago. If I am confused please enlighten. " Think subject and object stand or fall together." Schopenhauer

Being occurs through limits. These limits are categories. Given categories exist through consciousness, and all being exists through categories, then all being is conscious.

However:

Each category, which is synonymous in this conversation to context, both contains further categories and exists as a part of further categories. Categories exist within categories. Categories exist outside of categories. This makes the category, ie context, as self-referential thus indefinite as there is no contrast; only the category/context exists.

Considering consciousness is a part of the totality, and categories/contexts are part of consciousness (or rather consciousness itself), then categories/contexts are not part of the totality. They are a part which contains themselves.