All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

[Skepdick]

So two is not "multiple?" The OP says, in the argument, "binary at minimum".

Binary is precisely two.
At least two is 2, 3, 4, 5..... unbounded.

And multiple, 2 is the grounding of multiplicity. Every set of multiple phenomenon always contains 2 minimum.

OK, but binary means 2 and 2 only. "2 minimum" implies 3 (ternary); and 4 (quaternary) and 5 ( quinary ), and 6 ( senary ) and 7 ( septenary )......

Truth is unity, false is a gradation of truth as multiplicity yet this falsity is still truth as it is a gradation of truth.

Unity comes from unary. Unary means 1.

The thread is about binary (2)....

[Eodnhoj7]

So two is not "multiple?" The OP says, in the argument, "binary at minimum".

Binary is precisely two.
At least two is 2, 3, 4, 5..... unbounded.



Definition of multiple

1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

And multiple, 2 is the grounding of multiplicity. Every set of multiple phenomenon always contains 2 minimum.

OK, but binary means 2 and 2 only. "2 minimum" implies 3 (ternary); and 4 (quaternary) and 5 ( quinary ), and 6 ( senary ) and 7 ( septenary )......


1
0

10
01

etc.

All binary phenomenon exist through multiple dimensions. You cannot have any whole number creater than 1 without having even (binary) elements in it.

Even a number, used for counting, is always dualistic. 1 and 1 oranges is 1 set of 2 individuals...one and many, general and particulate.

You can argue all you want about the use of binary, but it will not change the OP thread as I said:

"No statement can be interpreted the same way as each statement is determined by a subjective value placement. One sentence can have 2 or more meanings to 2 or more people."

Truth is unity, false is a gradation of truth as multiplicity yet this falsity is still truth as it is a gradation of truth.

Unity comes from unary. Unary means 1.

The thread is about binary (2)....

And 2 is still 1 set. The proposition has a set of meanings, no contradiction.

[nothing]

Assumptions as you are assuming a definition of ignorance.

This is projection - a fault of yours, not mine.

And does not exist except through the negation of fire.

Knowledge exists not except through the negation of belief-based ignorance.

Knowledge is grounded in belief.

That knowledge is grounded in belief, is your own belief, and an ignorance on your part.

Yes, other wise you are left with an undefined assumption.

Ignorance need not be assumed: it can be known of, or not known of. That "Knowledge is grounded in belief" is certainly a case of the latter.

If you do not understand than any response is an assumption of what my response is or is not.

I do not understand you because you keep using the wrong words and making typos. I assume you care about your use of language, but now know better not to assume as much.

Providing tautologies just backs up by point

Your providing of your own "Knowledge is grounded in belief" serves toward the same end of proving mine. You can not see the projection of yourself.

Assumption is intrinsically empty, it is neither ignorance nor knowledge.

False: it is your ignorance.

If it has a distinct defined property than it is knowledge.

*then

It is also possible to know a "fact" that is negated by another fact.

Oh really? Like ...

The accuser, in accusing someone else, makes a projection of the self thus accuses himself.

being what you

The opposite, as an antithesis, is a gradation of the thesis thus exists as a negative limit...thus in this context it is true.

just tried to do,

Any more tautologies you wish to create?

so same question to you.

"Knowledge is grounded in belief"

[Skepdick]

Definition of multiple

1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

All binaries are multiple. All multiples are not binary.

When you use the word "binary" you ought to mean "exactly 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the integer 2.
When you use the word "multiple" you ought to mean "at least 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the open interval [2, ∞ )

You are mixing up the different uses.

And 2 is still 1 set.

And 1 is neither boolean nor multiple.

Because 1 is less than "more than 1"

The proposition has a set of meanings, no contradiction

There is at least equivocation.

One sentence can have 2 or more meanings to 2 or more people.

But to you (the person producing the sentence) it should have exactly one meaning. If you mean more than one thing with your words - you are being an obscurantist.

The goal of human communication is to help the other person (who infers multiple meanings) to arrive at your meaning. Disambiguation.

When you can't even choose a meaning of your own words (flipping between 'binary' and 'multiple') - you are setting up you interlocutors for failure.

Ironically, most who call themselves 'philosophers' seem to think that Socratic obscurantism/hindering communication is the goal of philosophy. It's a race to the bottom.

[Eodnhoj7]

Definition of multiple

1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

All binaries are multiple. All multiples are not binary.

When you use the word "binary" you ought to mean "exactly 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the integer 2.
When you use the word "multiple" you ought to mean "at least 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the open interval [2, ∞ )

You are mixing up the different uses.

All multiples begin with an contain 2. Binary as a proposition is subject to multiple meanings as well: dualism, two, more than 1.

And 2 is still 1 set.

And 1 is neither boolean nor multiple.

Because 1 is less than "more than 1"

1 set of multiple phenomenon necessitates that each phenomenon is a variation of one set. I can have 3 oranges, where each orange is 1 and orange as a set is 1.

1 is both a set and not set.

The same applies with language.

The proposition has a set of meanings, no contradiction

There is at least equivocation.

Superimposed context. Blue does not equal Green. Blue does equal green as a color.

The sentence may have multiple meanings to multiple observers, but these meanings are equivovated by context alone.

One sentence can have 2 or more meanings to 2 or more people.

But to you (the person producing the sentence) it should have exactly one meaning. If you mean more than one thing with your words - you are being an obscurantist.

No, it has multiple meanings to me. An obscurantist is a label, and by your definition any equation or algorithm which uses variables is obscure.

The goal of human communication is to help the other person (who infers multiple meanings) to arrive at your meaning. Disambiguation.

Actually it isn't always the case. The goal of communication is to form an interpretation that directs the user's attention.



When you can't even choose a meaning of your own words (flipping between 'binary' and 'multiple') - you are setting up you interlocutors for failure.

Take it up with a dictionary.

Ironically, most who call themselves 'philosophers' seem to think that Socratic obscurantism/hindering communication is the goal of philosophy. It's a race to the bottom.

No, it just self-references the nature of language. You have to understand one thing...in your trying to get people to understand your point of view:

IE "We are God" and we use tools specifically computing to have some stake in divinity....it is very obscure.

A computer cannot assign meaning and meaning is subject to multiple degrees of awareness.

You are also under another fallacy, and that fallacy is very simple: you are creating a false value system relative to whether obscurity is good or bad.

Obscurity is obscurity.

Choose 3 of the 4...you cannot always have "completeness".

[Eodnhoj7]

Assumptions as you are assuming a definition of ignorance.

This is projection - a fault of yours, not mine.

Not really, you leave it undefined.

And does not exist except through the negation of fire.

Knowledge exists not except through the negation of belief-based ignorance.

Knowledge exists through the negation of belief according to your stance...quite frankly you keep throwing the word knowledge around and I dont know what that means either.

Knowledge is grounded in belief.

That knowledge is grounded in belief, is your own belief, and an ignorance on your part.

You assume ignorance is always bad and again...you assume to know what ignorance is. The irony is, in light of the few people responding to your stance, you are ignorant of the fact few to none understand your theory except you.

Yes, other wise you are left with an undefined assumption.

Ignorance need not be assumed: it can be known of, or not known of. That "Knowledge is grounded in belief" is certainly a case of the latter.

Creating a tautology isn't going to help you.

If you do not understand than any response is an assumption of what my response is or is not.

I do not understand you because you keep using the wrong words and making typos. I assume you care about your use of language, but now know better not to assume as much.

Typos, yes. I generally do a quick run through once and would not be surprised that I misspell some things.

Wrong words, no.

Providing tautologies just backs up by point

Your providing of your own "Knowledge is grounded in belief" serves toward the same end of proving mine. You can not see the projection of yourself.

False, I am saying your system negates itself and is, if you want my truthful opinion, just bullshit.

And why do I say that?

My system, well it really isn't "mine", deals with a simple premise: everything is circular.

If I negate myself, and I often do just for the hell of it, all I do is create more circles. But this is just circular as well considering the repition of any phenomenon is circular.

So I literally can say and do anything I want in my system and never be wrong.

The only "wrong" is an absence of connection between loops, but at the end of the day a loop in position A and a loop in position B are both loops.

Assumption is intrinsically empty, it is neither ignorance nor knowledge.

False: it is your ignorance.

Void is not even ignorance as an absence of knowledge necessitates a gradation of knowledge from one state into another state, hence a relation.

If it has a distinct defined property than it is knowledge.

*then

So what...

It is also possible to know a "fact" that is negated by another fact.

Oh really? Like ...

Speed of light use to be a constant, now it is not. Fat use to be considered bad for you now it is good. Pluto use to be a planet...etc.

The accuser, in accusing someone else, makes a projection of the self thus accuses himself.

being what you

I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am simply applying your system to itself and negating it.

The opposite, as an antithesis, is a gradation of the thesis thus exists as a negative limit...thus in this context it is true.

just tried to do,

Any more tautologies you wish to create?

so same question to you.

"Knowledge is grounded in belief"

Knowledge is grounded in belief.

[Skepdick]

Definition of multiple

1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

All binaries are multiple. All multiples are not binary.

When you use the word "binary" you ought to mean "exactly 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the integer 2.
When you use the word "multiple" you ought to mean "at least 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the open interval [2, ∞ )

You are mixing up the different uses.

All multiples begin with an contain 2. Binary as a proposition is subject to multiple meanings as well: dualism, two, more than 1.

And 2 is still 1 set.

And 1 is neither boolean nor multiple.

Because 1 is less than "more than 1"

1 set of multiple phenomenon necessitates that each phenomenon is a variation of one set. I can have 3 oranges, where each orange is 1 and orange as a set is 1.

1 is both a set and not set.

The same applies with language.

The proposition has a set of meanings, no contradiction

There is at least equivocation.

Superimposed context. Blue does not equal Green. Blue does equal green as a color.

The sentence may have multiple meanings to multiple observers, but these meanings are equivovated by context alone.

One sentence can have 2 or more meanings to 2 or more people.

But to you (the person producing the sentence) it should have exactly one meaning. If you mean more than one thing with your words - you are being an obscurantist.

No, it has multiple meanings to me. An obscurantist is a label, and by your definition any equation or algorithm which uses variables is obscure.

The goal of human communication is to help the other person (who infers multiple meanings) to arrive at your meaning. Disambiguation.

Actually it isn't always the case. The goal of communication is to form an interpretation that directs the user's attention.



When you can't even choose a meaning of your own words (flipping between 'binary' and 'multiple') - you are setting up you interlocutors for failure.

Take it up with a dictionary.

Ironically, most who call themselves 'philosophers' seem to think that Socratic obscurantism/hindering communication is the goal of philosophy. It's a race to the bottom.

No, it just self-references the nature of language. You have to understand one thing...in your trying to get people to understand your point of view:

IE "We are God" and we use tools specifically computing to have some stake in divinity....it is very obscure.

A computer cannot assign meaning and meaning is subject to multiple degrees of awareness.

You are also under another fallacy, and that fallacy is very simple: you are creating a false value system relative to whether obscurity is good or bad.

Obscurity is obscurity.

Choose 3 of the 4...you cannot always have "completeness".

[Skepdick]

Definition of multiple

1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple

All binaries are multiple. All multiples are not binary.

When you use the word "binary" you ought to mean "exactly 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the integer 2.
When you use the word "multiple" you ought to mean "at least 2". Mathematically it corresponds to the open interval [2, ∞ )

You are mixing up the different uses.

All multiples begin with an contain 2. Binary as a proposition is subject to multiple meanings as well: dualism, two, more than 1.

And 2 is still 1 set.

And 1 is neither boolean nor multiple.

Because 1 is less than "more than 1"

1 set of multiple phenomenon necessitates that each phenomenon is a variation of one set. I can have 3 oranges, where each orange is 1 and orange as a set is 1.

1 is both a set and not set.

The same applies with language.

The proposition has a set of meanings, no contradiction

There is at least equivocation.

Superimposed context. Blue does not equal Green. Blue does equal green as a color.

The sentence may have multiple meanings to multiple observers, but these meanings are equivovated by context alone.

One sentence can have 2 or more meanings to 2 or more people.

But to you (the person producing the sentence) it should have exactly one meaning. If you mean more than one thing with your words - you are being an obscurantist.

No, it has multiple meanings to me. An obscurantist is a label, and by your definition any equation or algorithm which uses variables is obscure.

The goal of human communication is to help the other person (who infers multiple meanings) to arrive at your meaning. Disambiguation.

Actually it isn't always the case. The goal of communication is to form an interpretation that directs the user's attention.



When you can't even choose a meaning of your own words (flipping between 'binary' and 'multiple') - you are setting up you interlocutors for failure.

Take it up with a dictionary.

Ironically, most who call themselves 'philosophers' seem to think that Socratic obscurantism/hindering communication is the goal of philosophy. It's a race to the bottom.

No, it just self-references the nature of language. You have to understand one thing...in your trying to get people to understand your point of view:

IE "We are God" and we use tools specifically computing to have some stake in divinity....it is very obscure.

A computer cannot assign meaning and meaning is subject to multiple degrees of awareness.

You are also under another fallacy, and that fallacy is very simple: you are creating a false value system relative to whether obscurity is good or bad.

Obscurity is obscurity.

Choose 3 of the 4...you cannot always have "completeness".

My response just got lost. Fuck it .

[nothing]

Not really, you leave it undefined.

you are assuming a definition of ignorance.

You are double-talking.

Knowledge exists through the negation of belief according to your stance...quite frankly you keep throwing the word knowledge around and I dont know what that means either.

Yes it does, but not only. You don't have to first believe yourself to be something you are not, in order to know you are not that something.

The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance relates to ones own self.

You assume ignorance is always bad and again...you assume to know what ignorance is. The irony is, in light of the few people responding to your stance, you are ignorant of the fact few to none understand your theory except you.

When did I ever assume ignorance is "always bad"?
Does no response necessarily indicate few to none "understand"?
How are you privy to all possible context(s)?

These are again, all of your own assumptions.

Creating a tautology isn't going to help you.

No need to create: there are enough to try as it is.

Typos, yes. I generally do a quick run through once and would not be surprised that I misspell some things.

Wrong words, no.

You're using *than instead of *then:

"If you do not understand than any response is an assumption of what my response is or is not."

it's the wrong word and renders the entire statement incoherent.

False, I am saying your system negates itself and is, if you want my truthful opinion, just bullshit.

The problem is what you are saying is not demonstrated to be actually true. You repeat "negates itself" as incessantly as any religious whiner/squealer repeats their own assumptions/beliefs/dogmas. It is not different: once enmity sets in, the person defines themselves.

CKIIT has a need to "negate itself" to only leave the properties of P. If one wishes to solve for something other than P, this can only be done once the properties of P are known.

Can not infer unknown by way of unknown, thus P must be known in order to remove it.

And why do I say that?

My system, well it really isn't "mine", deals with a simple premise: everything is circular.

It's certainly not a premise of CKIIT.

If I negate myself, and I often do just for the hell of it, all I do is create more circles. But this is just circular as well considering the repition of any phenomenon is circular.

You can't practically negate yourself unless you are all-knowing, thus have no ignorance(s).

So I literally can say and do anything I want in my system and never be wrong.

i. this is religion, and
ii. CKIIT attaches itself to any being P and draws out the "wrong"

The only "wrong" is an absence of connection between loops, but at the end of the day a loop in position A and a loop in position B are both loops.

No clue what your reference to "absence of connection between loops" is referring to.

Void is not even ignorance as an absence of knowledge necessitates a gradation of knowledge from one state into another state, hence a relation.

Hence:
+P is a body of ignorance
-P is a body of knowledge

and each has their own body of ignorance(s) +P that is less the state: all-knowing, which is reflected in -P.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am simply applying your system to itself and negating it.

And it's good for you to try: but you are neither applying the system to itself (for not understanding it) nor negating it.

You just keep saying you are.

Knowledge is grounded in belief.

This thus defines your own local boundary condition (ie. ignorance) and places you in the very same 'state' as ignorant religious believers: conflation of belief-based ignorance as knowledge, thus no conscious knowledge of ignorance owing to lack of a practical conscious knowledge of self less belief.

P can only be "negated" if any/all properties of P are known a priori. CKIIT assumes P is unknown, and always will because it needs to solve for the direction/orientation of P, and/or flag one (or more) fixed properties that would collapse P into a definite ongoing state of + (ignorance). Once the latter happens, P is known to/by their own limitation and thus defines itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not really, you leave it undefined.

you are assuming a definition of ignorance.

You are double-talking.

You are assuming you know what ignorance is.

Knowledge exists through the negation of belief according to your stance...quite frankly you keep throwing the word knowledge around and I dont know what that means either.

Yes it does, but not only. You don't have to first believe yourself to be something you are not, in order to know you are not that something.

The first fundamental knowledge/ignorance relates to ones own self.

The self is empty.

You assume ignorance is always bad and again...you assume to know what ignorance is. The irony is, in light of the few people responding to your stance, you are ignorant of the fact few to none understand your theory except you.

When did I ever assume ignorance is "always bad"?
Does no response necessarily indicate few to none "understand"?
How are you privy to all possible context(s)?

Are you?

These are again, all of your own assumptions.

Creating a tautology isn't going to help you.

No need to create: there are enough to try as it is.

Typos, yes. I generally do a quick run through once and would not be surprised that I misspell some things.

Wrong words, no.

You're using *than instead of *then:

"If you do not understand than any response is an assumption of what my response is or is not."

it's the wrong word and renders the entire statement incoherent.

Not if you know it is the wrong word, you seem to understand it just fine .

False, I am saying your system negates itself and is, if you want my truthful opinion, just bullshit.

The problem is what you are saying is not demonstrated to be actually true. You repeat "negates itself" as incessantly as any religious whiner/squealer repeats their own assumptions/beliefs/dogmas. It is not different: once enmity sets in, the person defines themselves.

You keep saying enmity, like it is a swear word. You contradict yourself, so what.

CKIIT has a need to "negate itself" to only leave the properties of P. If one wishes to solve for something other than P, this can only be done once the properties of P are known.

The properties of P? Rofl you are stepping into a hornet's nest.
You are basically equating knowledge to variables that not only have infinite meanings and are subject to equivocation but effectively as just contextual loops as P<-->(P-->P).

You can break everything down to loops, strings and points of view....after that it is just forms. Logic and truth are brutally simple at times.

Can not infer unknown by way of unknown, thus P must be known in order to remove it.

And why do I say that?

My system, well it really isn't "mine", deals with a simple premise: everything is circular.

It's certainly not a premise of CKIIT.

Actually it is, the nature of your positive and negative graph requiring looping between positives and negatives, belief and knowledge.

The double positive thread in the math section observes this.

If I negate myself, and I often do just for the hell of it, all I do is create more circles. But this is just circular as well considering the repition of any phenomenon is circular.

You can't practically negate yourself unless you are all-knowing, thus have no ignorance(s).

Actually I can negate myself continually and produce positives. I can negate all fallacies using fallacies and it leads me with foundations for truth.

So I literally can say and do anything I want in my system and never be wrong.

i. this is religion, and
ii. CKIIT attaches itself to any being P and draws out the "wrong"

No, it is form. You can cut a line into infinite pieces and you will always end up with lines.

The only "wrong" is an absence of connection between loops, but at the end of the day a loop in position A and a loop in position B are both loops.

No clue what your reference to "absence of connection between loops" is referring to.

All assumptions as assumed are contextual loops. We see this with P-->P being not just a loop but a context.

All assumptions are defined by there connection to other assumptions. This connection is definition this definition is truth.

Void is not even ignorance as an absence of knowledge necessitates a gradation of knowledge from one state into another state, hence a relation.

Hence:
+P is a body of ignorance
-P is a body of knowledge

Void is not P or -P.

Look up double positives thread.

and each has their own body of ignorance(s) +P that is less the state: all-knowing, which is reflected in -P.

I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am simply applying your system to itself and negating it.

And it's good for you to try: but you are neither applying the system to itself (for not understanding it) nor negating it.

You just keep saying you are.

It is incomplete and requires beleif in order to complete it...that is all one needs to know.

Knowledge is grounded in belief.

This thus defines your own local boundary condition (ie. ignorance) and places you in the very same 'state' as ignorant religious believers: conflation of belief-based ignorance as knowledge, thus no conscious knowledge of ignorance owing to lack of a practical conscious knowledge of self less belief.

So what...I mean you keep throwing out the word "believer" like it is a curse.
I mean, so you throw a label on me....what happens now? Nothing. I mean really, who cares?


That is what you don't understand, your application of beleif and knowledge is subject to your point of view.

Applying a term...what does it really do?

P can only be "negated" if any/all properties of P are known a priori.

A priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge are negated as different when applying space. An blank field is common to both, thus not only does one exist through the other but they are just circular categories.

CKIIT assumes P is unknown, and always will because it needs to solve for the direction/orientation of P, and/or flag one (or more) fixed properties that would collapse P into a definite ongoing state of + (ignorance). Once the latter happens, P is known to/by their own limitation and thus defines itself.

CKIIT "assumes"...that is my point. Case closed,

[Impenitent]

Unity comes from unary. Unary means 1.

The thread is about binary (2)....

canary flew south

the scuba pun aside

-Imp

[nothing]

You are assuming you know what ignorance is.

I wouldn't need to if I knew what it was.

The self is empty.

Thus it would take a believer to believe otherwise if this can be known.

Are you?

That relate to me: yes. That relate to others: no.
I can no more choose for others if even
I knew what each choice leads to.

Not if you know it is the wrong word, you seem to understand it just fine .

It is a courtesy - wrong word.
I understand because I know it is the wrong word.

You keep saying enmity, like it is a swear word. You contradict yourself, so what.

It's a neutral word: enmity. It necessitates a person compare themselves to others that leads to the self/other conflation.

It results in people accusing others of what they are themselves guilty of.

The properties of P? Rofl you are stepping into a hornet's nest.
You are basically equating knowledge to variables that not only have infinite meanings and are subject to equivocation but effectively as just contextual loops as P<-->(P-->P)

...P can only move in two directions, therefor has a property: orientation. Two meanings, not "infinite" and P is not a loop: P requires a loop. P can be taken as a complete unknown (and must be if/when starting out). The known properties of P will be used to know the properties of any loop, including the one(s) that P is itself in without having conscious knowledge of.

You can break everything down to loops, strings and points of view....after that it is just forms. Logic and truth are brutally simple at times.

Your last point serves CKIIT as well as it would serve any view against.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are assuming you know what ignorance is.

I wouldn't need to if I knew what it was.

So you don't know what ignorance is, yet you talk about it constantly as a negative, do you see the unknown as bad?

The self is empty.

Thus it would take a believer to believe otherwise if this can be known.

Not really, tell me who you are....you can't. You can speak of repeating patterns, but that is it.

Are you?

That relate to me: yes. That relate to others: no.
I can no more choose for others if even
I knew what each choice leads to.

Not if you know it is the wrong word, you seem to understand it just fine .

It is a courtesy - wrong word.
I understand because I know it is the wrong word.

Then you know the meaning, if you didn't know it was wrong then you wouldn't understand. You saw a deficiency, thus new some form of what is whole.

You keep saying enmity, like it is a swear word. You contradict yourself, so what.

It's a neutral word: enmity. It necessitates a person compare themselves to others that leads to the self/other conflation.

It results in people accusing others of what they are themselves guilty of.

So what? I really don't know what you believe I am accusing of other than contradiction.

Under a cyclical system, what I argue, contradiction negates itself.

The properties of P? Rofl you are stepping into a hornet's nest.
You are basically equating knowledge to variables that not only have infinite meanings and are subject to equivocation but effectively as just contextual loops as P<-->(P-->P)

...P can only move in two directions, therefor has a property: orientation. Two meanings, not "infinite" and P is not a loop: P requires a loop. P can be taken as a complete unknown (and must be if/when starting out). The known properties of P will be used to know the properties of any loop, including the one(s) that P is itself in without having conscious knowledge of.

Not really, it can branch out in multiple directions like a tree:

P-->((B-->D&E)&(C-->F&G))

You can break everything down to loops, strings and points of view....after that it is just forms. Logic and truth are brutally simple at times.

Your last point serves CKIIT as well as it would serve any view against.

Of course it severs CKIIT, it serves all under other systems as well...it underlies all of them.

[nothing]

So you don't know what ignorance is, yet you talk about it constantly as a negative, do you see the unknown as bad?

I know what ignorance is not.

I see unknowing that 'unknown' exists as bad,
in the same way I see having no
conscious knowledge of ignorance as bad.
Hence inference theorem.

Not really, tell me who you are....you can't. You can speak of repeating patterns, but that is it.

I am.
-nothing

Then you know the meaning, if you didn't know it was wrong then you wouldn't understand. You saw a deficiency, thus new some form of what is whole.

It's not necessarily 'wrong', it has its own various meanings that have various degrees of application(s).

So what? I really don't know what you believe I am accusing of other than contradiction.

Under a cyclical system, what I argue, contradiction negates itself.

Accusing others of contradiction while contradicting ones own self satisfies the expression the accuser is the accused.

In the same way contradiction negates itself, you negate yourself if you happen to contradict yourself esp. and incl. to assume assumption is intrinsically empty.

Not really, it can branch out in multiple directions like a tree:

P-->((B-->D&E)&(C-->F&G))

You can know any seed by its fruit,
and tree by its roots.
The "tree" is not independent from the "seed"
just a time-dependent series of relationships
"branching" from one another.

This 'nature' allows trial/testing of such things as 'original sin'.

Of course it severs CKIIT, it serves all under other systems as well...it underlies all of them.

severs or serves ?

(!) <-

CKIIT is designed to break anything back down into its (in)definite original form
by assuming an empty one and subjecting itself to the properties defining any loop
acting on beings who are in a state of suffering. It takes a believer to believe
their own suffering is owing to others: a precedent for blame/accusation
(what Adam did re: Eve elaborated into Cain as drawing from ones own nature/essence in enmity and desire to spill blood).

[Eodnhoj7]

So you don't know what ignorance is, yet you talk about it constantly as a negative, do you see the unknown as bad?

I know what ignorance is not.

I see unknowing that 'unknown' exists as bad,
in the same way I see having no
conscious knowledge of ignorance as bad.
Hence inference theorem.

Not really, tell me who you are....you can't. You can speak of repeating patterns, but that is it.

I am.
-nothing

Then you know the meaning, if you didn't know it was wrong then you wouldn't understand. You saw a deficiency, thus new some form of what is whole.

It's not necessarily 'wrong', it has its own various meanings that have various degrees of application(s).

So what? I really don't know what you believe I am accusing of other than contradiction.

Under a cyclical system, what I argue, contradiction negates itself.

Accusing others of contradiction while contradicting ones own self satisfies the expression the accuser is the accused.

In the same way contradiction negates itself, you negate yourself if you happen to contradict yourself esp. and incl. to assume assumption is intrinsically empty.

Not really, it can branch out in multiple directions like a tree:

P-->((B-->D&E)&(C-->F&G))

You can know any seed by its fruit,
and tree by its roots.
The "tree" is not independent from the "seed"
just a time-dependent series of relationships
"branching" from one another.

This 'nature' allows trial/testing of such things as 'original sin'.

Of course it severs CKIIT, it serves all under other systems as well...it underlies all of them.

severs or serves ?

(!) <-

CKIIT is designed to break anything back down into its (in)definite original form
by assuming an empty one and subjecting itself to the properties defining any loop
acting on beings who are in a state of suffering. It takes a believer to believe
their own suffering is owing to others: a precedent for blame/accusation
(what Adam did re: Eve elaborated into Cain as drawing from ones own nature/essence in enmity and desire to spill blood).

If you know what ignorance is not, and what knowledge is not, and both of these negative negates eachother then we are left with everything being true as it is assumed as both knowledge and lack of knowledge being variations of eachother under one connected reality.