What I Believe

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

1. If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

2. That which exists is that which is observed.

3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.

What do you believe?
Age
Posts: 7804
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 1. If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
What degree of truth is there in a lion, and how much truth is there in it?

And, what degree of truth is there in a ergion, and how much truth is there in it?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 2. That which exists is that which is observed.
Does the Mind exist?

If yes, then how is 'It' observed?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.
How is the 'erqion' observed?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm What do you believe?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:45 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 1. If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
What degree of truth is there in a lion, and how much truth is there in it?

And, what degree of truth is there in a ergion, and how much truth is there in it?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 2. That which exists is that which is observed.
Does the Mind exist?

If yes, then how is 'It' observed?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.
How is the 'erqion' observed?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm What do you believe?
1. The lion is a degree of a mammal. I don't know what an ergion is.

2. The mind observes itself thus exists through a circularity. This circularity is observed through a circularity thus is self referential.

3. See point one.
Age
Posts: 7804
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:16 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:45 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 1. If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
What degree of truth is there in a lion, and how much truth is there in it?

And, what degree of truth is there in a ergion, and how much truth is there in it?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 2. That which exists is that which is observed.
Does the Mind exist?

If yes, then how is 'It' observed?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.
How is the 'erqion' observed?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm What do you believe?
1. The lion is a degree of a mammal.
I asked you, What degree of truth is there in a lion, AND how much truth is there in it?

You have FAILED here to answer EITHER CLARIFYING question.

I don't know what an ergion is.[/quote]

You CLAIMED that, If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

It does NOT matter if you do NOT YET know what an 'ergion' is, an 'ergion' exists. I just asked you CLARIFY your CLAIM, by asking you two SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

IF, as you CLAIM, "there is a degree of truth in existing things", and in the two examples I gave here, then SURELY if you KNOW your CLAIM is true, then you are able to EXPLAIN 'what degree of truth' is in those things, and, 'how much truth is there in those two things', correct?

I suggest that if you want to make CLAIMS, then you have the necessary PROOF to back up and support those CLAIMS, BEFORE you MAKE THEM.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:16 pm 2. The mind observes itself thus exists through a circularity. This circularity is observed through a circularity thus is self referential.
Although this may well be 100% ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, NOT being able to elaborate on, NOR being able to explain, how this ALL ACTUALLY WORKS, will NOT help "others" to UNDERSTAND and SEE 'you' BETTER.

Circularity is NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD until ALL attempts at Grand Unified Theories have CHANGED into, or reached and achieved, A Grand Unified Truth.

'you', human beings, in the days when this was written, were still somewhat from this, but 'you' will, and did, get there, SOON ENOUGH.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm3. See point one.
But 'you' stated and CLAIMED, "that which exists is that which is observed", and you also stated and CLAIMED, "the mind observes". Now, because 'ergion' EXISTS, this MEANS that "the mind" observes the 'ergion'. So, what is this 'you' thing, known as "eodnhoj7" here, in this forum, which does NOT YET KNOW what an 'ergion' is, but which "the mind" IS OBSERVING?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:16 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:45 am

What degree of truth is there in a lion, and how much truth is there in it?

And, what degree of truth is there in a ergion, and how much truth is there in it?



Does the Mind exist?

If yes, then how is 'It' observed?



How is the 'erqion' observed?

1. The lion is a degree of a mammal.
I asked you, What degree of truth is there in a lion, AND how much truth is there in it?

You have FAILED here to answer EITHER CLARIFYING question.

I don't know what an ergion is.
You CLAIMED that, If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

It does NOT matter if you do NOT YET know what an 'ergion' is, an 'ergion' exists. I just asked you CLARIFY your CLAIM, by asking you two SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

IF, as you CLAIM, "there is a degree of truth in existing things", and in the two examples I gave here, then SURELY if you KNOW your CLAIM is true, then you are able to EXPLAIN 'what degree of truth' is in those things, and, 'how much truth is there in those two things', correct?

I suggest that if you want to make CLAIMS, then you have the necessary PROOF to back up and support those CLAIMS, BEFORE you MAKE THEM.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:16 pm 2. The mind observes itself thus exists through a circularity. This circularity is observed through a circularity thus is self referential.
Although this may well be 100% ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct, NOT being able to elaborate on, NOR being able to explain, how this ALL ACTUALLY WORKS, will NOT help "others" to UNDERSTAND and SEE 'you' BETTER.

Circularity is NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD until ALL attempts at Grand Unified Theories have CHANGED into, or reached and achieved, A Grand Unified Truth.

'you', human beings, in the days when this was written, were still somewhat from this, but 'you' will, and did, get there, SOON ENOUGH.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm3. See point one.
But 'you' stated and CLAIMED, "that which exists is that which is observed", and you also stated and CLAIMED, "the mind observes". Now, because 'ergion' EXISTS, this MEANS that "the mind" observes the 'ergion'. So, what is this 'you' thing, known as "eodnhoj7" here, in this forum, which does NOT YET KNOW what an 'ergion' is, but which "the mind" IS OBSERVING?
[/quote]











1. And I answered it. The lion exists as a degree of mammal. How much truth is in it is dependent upon whether or not the degree is connected to its source much like a mirage is untrue as it is not connected to any source of water.

2. I gave you an answer to your unclear question. It is only clarifying to you as it backs up your opinions and beliefs which you have yet to prove.

3. Circularity is accepted "as is" given it is taken as axiomatic with no thought behind it.

4. Ergion is observed as a word which is not directed to any other phenomenon but itself.




So the question can you prove your stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions?
Age
Posts: 7804
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am
1. And I answered it. The lion exists as a degree of mammal. How much truth is in it is dependent upon whether or not the degree is connected to its source much like a mirage is untrue as it is not connected to any source of water.
You may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.

Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?

And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?

Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 2. I gave you an answer to your unclear question. It is only clarifying to you as it backs up your opinions and beliefs which you have yet to prove.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.

And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?

Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.

By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 3. Circularity is accepted "as is" given it is taken as axiomatic with no thought behind it.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.

When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.

By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?

After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 4. Ergion is observed as a word which is not directed to any other phenomenon but itself.
That is, to you, correct?

But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am So the question can you prove your stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.

But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.

I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.

But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.

Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am
1. And I answered it. The lion exists as a degree of mammal. How much truth is in it is dependent upon whether or not the degree is connected to its source much like a mirage is untrue as it is not connected to any source of water.
You may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.

Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?

And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?

Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 2. I gave you an answer to your unclear question. It is only clarifying to you as it backs up your opinions and beliefs which you have yet to prove.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.

And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?

Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.

By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 3. Circularity is accepted "as is" given it is taken as axiomatic with no thought behind it.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.

When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.

By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?

After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 4. Ergion is observed as a word which is not directed to any other phenomenon but itself.
That is, to you, correct?

But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am So the question can you prove your stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.

But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.

I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.

But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.

Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.

2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.

3. A circle is accepted "as is" by many people. It is axiomatic.

4. The unicorn is directed towards an image, ergion is not.

5. Having unfixed views is a stance.
Age
Posts: 7804
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am
1. And I answered it. The lion exists as a degree of mammal. How much truth is in it is dependent upon whether or not the degree is connected to its source much like a mirage is untrue as it is not connected to any source of water.
You may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.

Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?

And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?

Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 2. I gave you an answer to your unclear question. It is only clarifying to you as it backs up your opinions and beliefs which you have yet to prove.
What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.

And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?

Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.

By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 3. Circularity is accepted "as is" given it is taken as axiomatic with no thought behind it.
This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.

When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.

By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?

After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am 4. Ergion is observed as a word which is not directed to any other phenomenon but itself.
That is, to you, correct?

But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:43 am So the question can you prove your stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions?
If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.

But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.

I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.

But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.

Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.
Points of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?

Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.

And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.
So what?

You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 3. A circle is accepted "as is" by many people. It is axiomatic.
Okay, if you say so.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 4. The unicorn is directed towards an image, ergion is not.
To who, or what?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 5. Having unfixed views is a stance.
Is it, to you?

If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?

The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:53 am

You may have answered the first part, from YOUR perspective, but you did NOT answer the second part, that is; until now.

Now, what is the source of 'mammal'?

And, saying, 'a mirage is untrue' is saying that some things that exist are untrue, which could mean that some existing things have NO degree of truth to them at all, which appears to CONTRADICT your CLAIM that; If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.

So, what degree of 'truth' is there in 'that', which is SUPPOSEDLY 'untrue', and which is NOT connected to ANY 'source'?

Maybe if you EXPLAINED WHAT and WHERE this 'source' is EXACTLY, for ALL things, existing, or NOT YET existing.



What are "my BELIEFS", which you are 'trying to' CLAIM here.

And, were you meant to add the 'not' word in your last sentence here?

Also, if my questions are UNCLEAR, to you, then I SUGGEST you GAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even try to answer them. That way there will NOT be SO MUCH CONFUSION here.

By the way, I also SUGGEST GAINING CLARITY BEFORE ANY and ALL ASSUMPTIONS are MADE about absolutely ANY thing, in the Universe, which is UNCLEAR.



This is 'accepted' by who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Also, I could accept 'circularity', as, 'as is', IF and WHEN absolutely EVERY thing has been UNIFIED. Until then 'circular reasoning' or 'circularity' can be used to back up and support one's own ALREADY GAINED and HELD BELIEFS, which may NOT be ACTUALLY true, right, NOR correct AT ALL.

When 'circularity' involves and 'revolves around' ALL things, then this is PERFECTLY FINE, because this is HOW thee Universe becomes Self-EXPLANATORY.

By the way, how can there be NO 'thought' "behind circularity", when it IS through thought how ALL-OF-THIS/thee Universe BECOMES KNOWN?

After all, it is through thought how what is KNOWN is SHARED, among the MANY, perceived, PARTS of thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself.



That is, to you, correct?

But what about the word 'unicorn', is that ALSO observed as a word which is not directed to ANY other phenomenon but itself, AS WELL?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then WHY NOT? What is the DIFFERENCE here?



If you are here asking; Can I prove my stance is even correct and not built upon assumptions? then the answer is yes.

But to understand fully my response you would first have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND that I do NOT have "a stance". I, however, have views, which have come from what I have observed, and which are NOT 'fixed' NOR ANY kind of 'stance' also.

I have views, which I like to SHARE. And, if ANY of those views are NOT true, right, nor correct, then just EXPLAIN WHY. If that EXPLANATION and WHY make more sense, then I will OBVIOUSLY see things DIFFERENTLY. Which is what ACTUALLY happens ANYWAY and NATURALLY because what there is to LOOK AT and SEE is almost ALL ALWAYS CHANGING.

But to answer your question in a more appropriate?? way, I can prove my views are correct and are NOT built upon assumptions.

Which is CONTRARY to what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true, correct?
1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.
Points of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?

Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.

And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.
So what?

You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 3. A circle is accepted "as is" by many people. It is axiomatic.
Okay, if you say so.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 4. The unicorn is directed towards an image, ergion is not.
To who, or what?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 5. Having unfixed views is a stance.
Is it, to you?

If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?

The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another. For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.

2. That which is untrue is composed of things which are true but disconnected. 2+2=5 necessitates 2 and 2 and 5 as existing entities but are disconnected within the statements. Untruth is disconnected truths.

3. A unicorn is directed towards an image of a unicorn, ergion is not directed towards any image except itself as a word.

4. To say everything changes is to have a fixed stance where change is absolute. Everything changing results in nothing really changing.
Age
Posts: 7804
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm

1. The source of a mammal is many cells working together, the source of the many cells is many molecules, the source of the many molecules is atoms, the source of the many atoms are forms, the source of the many forms are points.
Points of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?

Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.

And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 2. A mirage is a reflection of water, the mirage is the appearance of water, this appearance of water is a reflection of water itself. The image of water is not connected to water yet the image points to something as existing even though it is not connected to that source.
So what?

You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 3. A circle is accepted "as is" by many people. It is axiomatic.
Okay, if you say so.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 4. The unicorn is directed towards an image, ergion is not.
To who, or what?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:48 pm 5. Having unfixed views is a stance.
Is it, to you?

If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?

The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another.
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.

By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 2. That which is untrue is composed of things which are true but disconnected. 2+2=5 necessitates 2 and 2 and 5 as existing entities but are disconnected within the statements. Untruth is disconnected truths.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 3. A unicorn is directed towards an image of a unicorn, ergion is not directed towards any image except itself as a word.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.

And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.

For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.

However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.

In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 4. To say everything changes is to have a fixed stance where change is absolute. Everything changing results in nothing really changing.
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.

See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:54 am

Points of 'what', EXACTLY, or what are 'points', themselves, EXACTLY?

Also, to some people the source of atoms is NOT 'form' but rather sub-atomic particles of matter. The 'sub-atomic' words gives this away.

And, if ANY one is interested, these 'particles of 'matter', or just plain old 'matter', itself, just ALWAYS EXIST, and therefore it could be argued has NO source, AT ALL. However, matter can ONLY exist because of some thing else, so, in this sense, this other thing could be the source for matter.



So what?

You made the CLAIM that a "mirage is UNTRUE". You also made the CLAIM that if something exists, then there is a degree of TRUTH in it. A 'mirage' obviously exists. So, just how much TRUTH can be in some thing, which you also CLAIM is UNTRUE?



Okay, if you say so.



To who, or what?



Is it, to you?

If yes, then can some thing, which is a 'stance', to 'you', be CHANGED or does it ALWAYS 'STAND', 'as is'?

The word 'stance', to some, is related to the word 'stand', which can infer or imply a FIXED, or UNCHANGING, view of things. After all can you prove your 'stance', and do you 'stand' by it?
1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another.
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.

By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 2. That which is untrue is composed of things which are true but disconnected. 2+2=5 necessitates 2 and 2 and 5 as existing entities but are disconnected within the statements. Untruth is disconnected truths.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 3. A unicorn is directed towards an image of a unicorn, ergion is not directed towards any image except itself as a word.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.

And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.

For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.

However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.

In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 4. To say everything changes is to have a fixed stance where change is absolute. Everything changing results in nothing really changing.
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.

See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.

2. Actually it is necessary, what are unnecessary are your critiques as they are subjective opinion about how things SHOULD be worded...they are your beliefs and assumptions.

3. Truths are that which bind phenomenon. A truth is a relationship.

4. Yet different people see the same word even though it is directed to many different things. The word acts as a point of change yet this point of change is still observed regardless of the differences it changes to.

5. Actually you have not explained everything. You have not explained how everything changes.

Dually the multiple versions of EVERY thing, everything and Everything mirror eachother thus show a common source. Their supposed differences result from the same source expressed under different contexts.
Age
Posts: 7804
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm

1. A point is the origin of change from one phenomenon to another.
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm For example the points which compose a line invert to the line itself thus are the beginning and end of a form. Looking at an object up close results in points, ie beginnings and ends to the form which they compose. Dually an object at a distance results in a point, but unfolds to further phenomena.
Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.

By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 2. That which is untrue is composed of things which are true but disconnected. 2+2=5 necessitates 2 and 2 and 5 as existing entities but are disconnected within the statements. Untruth is disconnected truths.
But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 3. A unicorn is directed towards an image of a unicorn, ergion is not directed towards any image except itself as a word.
More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.

And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.

For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.

However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.

In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:47 pm 4. To say everything changes is to have a fixed stance where change is absolute. Everything changing results in nothing really changing.
This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.

See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.
And, as I just said:
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Therefore, 'a point' may NOT necessarily unfold AT ALL, which is 'my point', or yet 'another point', which reminds me, what was 'your point' (which is, literally, yet 'another point'again), in saying the above?

See, there REALLY is MANY DIFFERENT 'points'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 2. Actually it is necessary, what are unnecessary are your critiques as they are subjective opinion about how things SHOULD be worded...they are your beliefs and assumptions.
LOL 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE about what my ACTUAL FULL VIEW IS.

Just for your information, you could NOT be FURTHER FROM thee ACTUAL here, either.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 3. Truths are that which bind phenomenon. A truth is a relationship.
If you say so.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 4. Yet different people see the same word even though it is directed to many different things. The word acts as a point of change yet this point of change is still observed regardless of the differences it changes to.
And, what is 'the point', which you are so desperately 'trying to' say, relay, and relate here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 5. Actually you have not explained everything.
I had NEVER even thought I had, let alone even said I had.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm You have not explained how everything changes.
This is partly because NO one has even asked me to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm Dually the multiple versions of EVERY thing, everything and Everything mirror eachother thus show a common source. Their supposed differences result from the same source expressed under different contexts.
OF COURSE, there can ONLY EVER be One True SOURCE.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:41 am

BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.



Maybe if you just EXPRESSED ONLY 'that' what you are 'trying to' say, and PROVE, then we could just LOOK AT 'that' INSTEAD, and then DISCUSS 'that'.

By the way the use of the word 'point' is NOT necessary to EXPLAIN, and PROVE, 'that' what you are 'trying to' EXPLAIN, and PROVE, here.



But, what ARE 'truths'?, and, what ARE 'truths'? By the way, those TWO EXACT SAME QUESTIONS are asking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

So, in other words, the MEANING you HAVE and are PUTTING BEHIND and IN the words that you are using here are NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME MEANING, which "others" are INTERPRETATING.




More correctly, when one sees or hears the word 'unicorn', then they can be directed in ONE WAY towards an image of a unicorn or in MANY OTHER ways, to MANY OTHER things, ALL depending on what their previous experiences have been.

And, when one sees or hears the word 'ergion', then that one IS directed in WHATEVER WAY that their previous experiences INFLUENCES them towards.

For example, 'you', "eodnhoj7", see the word 'ergion' you are NOT directed towards ANY image except towards the word itself ONLY because of your own previous experiences.

However, and OBVIOUSLY, what happens to the 'one', known as "eodnhoj7" here, and what 'you' are directed towards is NOT what EVERY one "else" is directed towards.

In other words, what 'you' think or SEE is NOT necessarily the EXACT SAME as EVERY one "else".



This can be said to be true but this can also be said to be NOT necessarily true, at all.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED what ACTUALLY OCCURS.

See, to EXPLAIN your number 4. so that it is FULLY UNDERSTOOD in a way, which fits (in) PERFECTLY WITH absolutely ALL things, is to FIRST UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between the words 'EVERY thing', 'everything', and 'Everything'.
1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.
And, as I just said:
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Therefore, 'a point' may NOT necessarily unfold AT ALL, which is 'my point', or yet 'another point', which reminds me, what was 'your point' (which is, literally, yet 'another point'again), in saying the above?

See, there REALLY is MANY DIFFERENT 'points'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 2. Actually it is necessary, what are unnecessary are your critiques as they are subjective opinion about how things SHOULD be worded...they are your beliefs and assumptions.
LOL 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE about what my ACTUAL FULL VIEW IS.

Just for your information, you could NOT be FURTHER FROM thee ACTUAL here, either.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 3. Truths are that which bind phenomenon. A truth is a relationship.
If you say so.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 4. Yet different people see the same word even though it is directed to many different things. The word acts as a point of change yet this point of change is still observed regardless of the differences it changes to.
And, what is 'the point', which you are so desperately 'trying to' say, relay, and relate here?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm 5. Actually you have not explained everything.
I had NEVER even thought I had, let alone even said I had.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm You have not explained how everything changes.
This is partly because NO one has even asked me to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:38 pm Dually the multiple versions of EVERY thing, everything and Everything mirror eachother thus show a common source. Their supposed differences result from the same source expressed under different contexts.
OF COURSE, there can ONLY EVER be One True SOURCE.
1. A point as many different things is the point unfolding to further points. One point expressed though many, just in the same manner you equating the difference of points under one point.

2. That is your belief and assumption about what I percieve.

3. The point is universal.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3716
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What I Believe

Post by Sculptor »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 1. If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
What do you mean. "Truth" in "it"?

2. That which exists is that which is observed.
SO you are implying that unless you observe it, it does not exist.
That's surely a load of old bollocks isn't it?

3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.

What do you believe?
Mental phenomena are NOT observable. By your rubric they do not even exist.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What I Believe

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:16 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:49 pm 1. If something exists then there is a degree of truth in it.
What do you mean. "Truth" in "it"?

2. That which exists is that which is observed.
SO you are implying that unless you observe it, it does not exist.
That's surely a load of old bollocks isn't it?

3. All mental and physical phenomena exist as they are observed either empirically or abstractly.

What do you believe?
Mental phenomena are NOT observable. By your rubric they do not even exist.
1. That there is a relation through which one underlying phenomenon repeats across many.

2. If the universe is self aware it is observing itself. This universal awareness is the reflection of phenomenon. For example the basic "Y" branch reflects itself across trees, plants, veins, capillaries, the flow of water, lightning, etc.

3. Mental phenomenon are observed through thoughts. All empirical phenomena, as reducible to memories (given all observations are of past events), are observed through the mind.
Post Reply