Page 4 of 5

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:54 pm
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.
(!)

Ignorance is not necessarily a negative.

Why do you keep insisting on polarizing everything?
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:51 pm
nothing wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:54 pm
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.
(!)

Ignorance is not necessarily a negative.

Good, then it can be a positive and there is no need to negate it.

Why do you keep insisting on polarizing everything?
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:52 pm
Good, then it can be a positive and there is no need to negate it.
If it can be a positive, why not negate it into such?

*P has a partner *Q.
*P has some degree(s) of "evil" within.
*P "acts" (from a place of that "evil") on *Q.
*Q does not receive the actions of *P as "evil" but "good".
*Q can do the same with *P until only "good" exists between them.

viz.
I am that I am
*P ->(boundlessness)<- *Q
"that" is any/all boundaries "brought in"
by *P and/or *Q (if any).

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:34 am
nothing wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:52 pm
Good, then it can be a positive and there is no need to negate it.
If it can be a positive, why not negate it into such?

*P has a partner *Q.
*P has some degree(s) of "evil" within.
*P "acts" (from a place of that "evil") on *Q.
*Q does not receive the actions of *P as "evil" but "good".
*Q can do the same with *P until only "good" exists between them.

viz.
I am that I am
*P ->(boundlessness)<- *Q
"that" is any/all boundaries "brought in"
by *P and/or *Q (if any).
Because it is positive and negative. If you negate it, then you are negating the positive resulting in a negative but you are also negating the negative resulting in a positive.

Belief is inevitable.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:52 pm
Because it is positive and negative. If you negate it, then you are negating the positive resulting in a negative but you are also negating the negative resulting in a positive.

Belief is inevitable.
You don't negate the positive, you partake in it (ie. consume).
The negative is knowledge attained to compounded onto the body of knowledge of -P.

Two conjugate figure-8's can turn "evil" into "good" ad infinitum with knowledge.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:13 am
nothing wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:52 pm
Because it is positive and negative. If you negate it, then you are negating the positive resulting in a negative but you are also negating the negative resulting in a positive.

Belief is inevitable.
You don't negate the positive, you partake in it (ie. consume).
Negation is division so is consumption.

The negative is knowledge attained to compounded onto the body of knowledge of -P.

Two conjugate figure-8's can turn "evil" into "good" ad infinitum with knowledge.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:29 pm
Negation is division so is consumption.
Negation is annihilation, not division. (!)
Negation resolves division.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:52 pm
nothing wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:29 pm
Negation is division so is consumption.
Negation is annihilation, not division. (!)
Negation resolves division.
Annihilation is the destruction of a phenomena, as in the breaking down of it...it is divisive by nature.

If Hiroshima is annihilated by a bomb, the forms that manifested as Hiroshima are now a new set of forms (atoms, dust, bone, pain, despair, etc.).

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:33 am
the ship of Theseus is sailing away...

-Imp

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:25 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:52 pm
Annihilation is the destruction of a phenomena, as in the breaking down of it...it is divisive by nature.

If Hiroshima is annihilated by a bomb, the forms that manifested as Hiroshima are now a new set of forms (atoms, dust, bone, pain, despair, etc.).
Cells divide to create, human beings create bombs.

If Hiroshima is annihilated by a bomb, the forms that manifested the bomb are already a set of forms (atoms, dust, bone, pain, despair, etc.).

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:38 am
nothing wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:25 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:52 pm
Annihilation is the destruction of a phenomena, as in the breaking down of it...it is divisive by nature.

If Hiroshima is annihilated by a bomb, the forms that manifested as Hiroshima are now a new set of forms (atoms, dust, bone, pain, despair, etc.).
Cells divide to create, human beings create bombs.

If Hiroshima is annihilated by a bomb, the forms that manifested the bomb are already a set of forms (atoms, dust, bone, pain, despair, etc.).
And those forms cycles back to another variation.

Annihilation, as the destruction of being, is its atomization by nature. If you reduce it to pure energy you are still left with a change in forms by division.

You can break a point as much as you want and always end up with many points. The same occurs for the various particles and fields.

Destroy one city and a new one cycles into existence.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:33 am
And those forms cycles back to another variation.

Annihilation, as the destruction of being, is its atomization by nature. If you reduce it to pure energy you are still left with a change in forms by division.

You can break a point as much as you want and always end up with many points. The same occurs for the various particles and fields.

Destroy one city and a new one cycles into existence.
Any variation(s) is dependent on an original form: if such is only destructive, it produces only destructive forms. Belief-based ignorance presumes such forms where there is none, thus despite there being no real "substance" there is definitely a mass. This mass of ignorance is thus conjugate to any/all possible forms being fed by the mass. If/when one approaches the most original form, one can know all derivative. Complex forms reduce into simple forms, and simple forms have universal properties which bleed into the ethereal.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:05 am
nothing wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:33 am
And those forms cycles back to another variation.

Annihilation, as the destruction of being, is its atomization by nature. If you reduce it to pure energy you are still left with a change in forms by division.

You can break a point as much as you want and always end up with many points. The same occurs for the various particles and fields.

Destroy one city and a new one cycles into existence.
Any variation(s) is dependent on an original form: if such is only destructive, it produces only destructive forms. Belief-based ignorance presumes such forms where there is none, thus despite there being no real "substance" there is definitely a mass. This mass of ignorance is thus conjugate to any/all possible forms being fed by the mass. If/when one approaches the most original form, one can know all derivative. Complex forms reduce into simple forms, and simple forms have universal properties which bleed into the ethereal.
A destruction form is a paradox and you are left with basic geometry again. The same line which cuts a piece of bread in half is the same line which allows it to take form.

Forms are simultaneously connective and seperative.

Your argument couldn't destroy the lid off of a jar of pickles.

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:34 pm
A destruction form is a paradox and you are left with basic geometry again. The same line which cuts a piece of bread in half is the same line which allows it to take form.
Destruction is not a form, it is a property of form. Creation is its counter-part, also a property of form.
Forms are simultaneously connective and seperative.
Now that is a paradox.
Your argument couldn't destroy the lid off of a jar of pickles.
...did you make a pickle sandwich prior to response?
Just curious whence the inspiration of such stupid analogy.

I'd obviously use your bread-cutting line to tap the lid loose,
given it must already exist in order for the pickle predicament to be so.

Why doesn't every home have one by now?

### Re: All Propositions Have Binary Meanings

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:59 am
nothing wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:34 pm
A destruction form is a paradox and you are left with basic geometry again. The same line which cuts a piece of bread in half is the same line which allows it to take form.
Destruction is not a form, it is a property of form. Creation is its counter-part, also a property of form.

Property of form is a form, all functions are movement and all forms exist as composed of movements. Reality is a ratio of movements within movements.
Forms are simultaneously connective and seperative.
Now that is a paradox.

False, if I say "water" I am saying "not-water" as well considering a puddle or water is defined by what it is not. Thus when I look at everything that determines what the puddle of water is, I am looking at not water, but that not water determines water.

All definitions require isomorphism in nature and as such are fundamentally formless as the inversion of one property to another is formless.

Your argument couldn't destroy the lid off of a jar of pickles.
...did you make a pickle sandwich prior to response?
Just curious whence the inspiration of such stupid analogy.

I'd obviously use your bread-cutting line to tap the lid loose,
given it must already exist in order for the pickle predicament to be so.

Why doesn't every home have one by now?