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.
+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.