Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:59 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:33 pm
And those externilizations of symbols, cycle back to your own awareness.

You have a thought. You manifest it into various symbols (ie language or action as language).

Those symbols cycle back to your pscyhe, constituting a new set of assumptions that exist as recursive variations of the original assumption.
The thought caused the symbols. Not the other way around.

Circular argument, law 3. Thought begins with a single point as empty mind, or originates with an empty mind observing a point, or the observation of many points as a form.

The point is a symbol.

The point is also an empirical reality as well considering we intuitively at each glance stare at a specific point or the phenomenon we are observing it composed of point particles within point particles as a point particle.

Point space and thought are inseperable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 pm
Language or symbol....which comes first?
Neither. Language is symbolic.

Hence all reality as composed by symbols is a language.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:09 pm


Yes, mine is an assumption...but I follow my own premise. All axioms are assumed then all axioms progress, then they circle back.

Your proof is assumption as well considering the relativistic nature of your stance due to your point of observation.
What do you mean "your proof"?

I have not even given any "proof", so I certainly have not given any assumption also.
Proof is merely a state of definition.

If I have already proved some thing to you, then so be it. There is nothing more to say if it has already been proven to you. You now do not have to assume any thing at all regarding this. So, you can now stop making assumptions, like I have stopped doing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You proved your stance as strictly subjective.
Obviously, I stated my view as being strictly subjective. I did, after all, use the 'To me' words for that specific reason. After all, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, which by the way is one of many non assumed statements.

I specifically wrote 'to me the answer is no' because I knew there are different views. So, I was not saying thee answer is no. I am saying, to me, the answer is no. Surely you understand this?

Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You assumed a negative stance.
Just to correct you, I never assumed a negative stance at all. What I did was, I took a negative stance, and for very good reason. But you assume and believe some thing else, so we will never move on from this.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
You are assuming some thing completely wrong here, unless of course you can show otherwise. What is the actual assumption that you are assuming I am giving here?

That there are no assumptions.


As I have already stated, and which is now proven to be true and correct, you are assuming some thing completely wrong.

I have NEVER assumed that there are no assumptions.

So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.

Here is handy hint, if you stop making assumptions, then you will stop being so frequently wrong. But, unfortunately, you are unable to stop making assumptions because that then goes against your very own assumptions and beliefs about how all thinking is assumed. And, you would not, nor could not, go against what you already assume and believe is True.

Until you stop making assumptions and believing things you are unable to move forward.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:10 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:33 pm
And those externilizations of symbols, cycle back to your own awareness.

You have a thought. You manifest it into various symbols (ie language or action as language).

Those symbols cycle back to your pscyhe, constituting a new set of assumptions that exist as recursive variations of the original assumption.
The thought caused the symbols. Not the other way around.

See above post, symbols may form thought from the premise all is point space.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:38 pm
Language or symbol....which comes first?
Neither. The intent or desire to express something comes first.

intent is the projection of assumptions. Desire is an absence of fulfillment within a pattern that constitutes the psyche. It is an incomplete pattern. For example I desire food; hence I lack nourishment of some form. Nourishment is the fulfillment of patterns (recieving nutrients, calories, etc.) that maintains the cycles of the bodies integral movements (ie circulation, nerve function, etc.) Trillema rule 3.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am

Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm


What do you mean "your proof"?

I have not even given any "proof", so I certainly have not given any assumption also.
Proof is merely a state of definition.

If I have already proved some thing to you, then so be it. There is nothing more to say if it has already been proven to you. You now do not have to assume any thing at all regarding this. So, you can now stop making assumptions, like I have stopped doing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You proved your stance as strictly subjective.
Obviously, I stated my view as being strictly subjective. I did, after all, use the 'To me' words for that specific reason. After all, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, which by the way is one of many non assumed statements.

Actually you are still assuming it is subjective, the fact I can understand certain degrees of your dialogue lends a necessary objectivity.

I specifically wrote 'to me the answer is no' because I knew there are different views. So, I was not saying thee answer is no. I am saying, to me, the answer is no. Surely you understand this?

You are assuming you are not agreeing at all, when in fact your dialogue is purely assumed by a premise of "I". "I" is both a subjective and objective axiom, considering we all observe it.

Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.

trillema rule 2....all axioms exist in a progressive continuum; hence cause variation.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You assumed a negative stance.
Just to correct you, I never assumed a negative stance at all. What I did was, I took a negative stance, and for very good reason. But you assume and believe some thing else, so we will never move on from this.

No is an assumption, just as yes is one as well. This prior statement is an assumption; hence is not contradictory by my stance due to its recursive nature of continual assumptions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
You are assuming some thing completely wrong here, unless of course you can show otherwise. What is the actual assumption that you are assuming I am giving here?

That there are no assumptions.


As I have already stated, and which is now proven to be true and correct, you are assuming some thing completely wrong.

False, because wrongness is strictly a deficiency in a connection between assumptions...this does not negate the fact there are assumptions.

I have NEVER assumed that there are no assumptions.

So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.

Relative to the context of "all is assumption" under certain contexts, according to you, there are no assumptioms.

Here is handy hint, if you stop making assumptions, then you will stop being so frequently wrong. But, unfortunately, you are unable to stop making assumptions because that then goes against your very own assumptions and beliefs about how all thinking is assumed. And, you would not, nor could not, go against what you already assume and believe is True.

Until you stop making assumptions and believing things you are unable to move forward.

False, rule 2 observes all assumptions as a continuum in themselves. One assumption progresses to another assumption and this is what we call definition. Definition is of course an assumption and the argument is an expanding or contracting circle. Thus we always have constant truth, but relativity is an angle of awareness...or rather just the relation of points, which is what an angle is primarily.


Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:20 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:09 pm
You cann avoid assumptions without giving further definition of a phenomenon...which becomes an assumption in itself.
This is just another one of YOUR assumptions, once again.
Yes and no. Yes from the angle I am presenting it, no because all truths are relegated to assumed axioms.
So, when I say the word 'no', then to you that is an assumption, but when you state some thing like above then that is and is not an assumption. Yet, you also say that every thing is an assumption.

You really do need to make yourself more clearer if you truly want to be heard and understood.

Also how can there be an "assumed axiom"? To me that is a very obvious contradiction and oxymoron.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
When you stop making assumptions, then we can move on.
False,
How do you know it is false?

You have to do some thing first before you will know it it works or not.

Until you stop making assumptions you will NEVER know if it is false or true.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
I state all axioms are assumed. If I did not present my argument as also assumed I would contradict my own premises.
Which is exactly what you continually are doing.

Your whole argument is based on an assumption, which to me is obviously WRONG, as well as being a truly stupid and ridiculous thing to do anyway.

You could not possibly even consider my point of view because you would then, as you say, have to contradict your own premises and view of things. And, you are never going to contradict your own views, would you? To do so would be very a contradictory and hypocritical thing to do.

Also, is starting an argument with assumed premises, which obviously could be wrong and false in the beginning, really the right and best thing to do?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
Are you saying that 'assuming'is the first law of the trillema?
All axioms are assumed is the often presented first law of the trillema.
"All axioms are assumed" is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself and therefore is nonsensical from the outset.

Who else, besides you, "often" presents such, to me, ridiculous first law of the tillema?

Also, saying what is "often" presumed does not answer my question about what is it that you are saying.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
But because this must be further explained given a continuum of definition, the second law applies simultaneously. All axioms are assumed because all assumptions are axiomatic necessitates the third law of the trillema existing simultaneously.
Even your own words in this "argument" you have speaks of the absurdity of this concept you have.

I do not even have to say any thing against what you are saying. You are fighting against and contradicting your own self here.

You are supporting my view about WHY it is much better to never make an assumption at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
The three laws exist simultaneously through eachother, hence any 1st, 2nd, 3rd is relative to the beginning starting point.
And correct me if a wrong, but you are not able to actually get anywhere because of this 1, 2, and 3 trillema right?

If this is right, then you have just proven yourself, and your "theory/argument", as being "right", so congratulations.

From my perspective with your own theory/argument you are not actually able to achieve any thing meaningful nor usefulness in Life. So, well done.

Also, of course, three laws exist simultaneously, that is why it is called a tri-llema. It is just three stupid laws existing simultaneously why it is called a "tri-llema problem".

If two, ridiculous and contradictory, laws exist simultaneously, then it would be called a "di-llema problem".

And, if three laws exist simultaneously through each other, then what does this mean or prove, other than these three laws exist simultaneously through each other?

It certainly does not mean nor prove that there is an actual "problem" here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
What is it that you actually want to discuss here? You did, after all, say; "So for discussion", then asked a question and gave three options to answer.

I did my part, so let us now discuss.

To discuss I found if you clarify the things you say, then I gain a better understanding of what is that you want to say, and discuss.

Until I fully know what you are talking about when you say things like; "first law of trillema", etc, then we really have nothing to discuss.

Point number 2 describes the three laws...guess which is first.

But, if I guessed, then I would be assuming, and, if I started assuming, then I would be proving your theory/argument is "right", which is, by itself, a totally useless and meaningless theory/argument anyway.

I already agree with you, and have said countless times already, assuming things is NOT helpful at all.

For example, assuming "All axioms are assumed", besides being obviously contradictory and WRONG, is also NOT helpful at all.

All assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, so to say that all axioms are assumed is to say that all axioms could be wrong or partly wrong. Therefore, no matter what you say could be wrong or partly wrong and so you will NEVER know if what you are saying is right nor even partly right.

The only way your "theory" (or "argument", or whatever you are trying to say and propose here) is "right" is because as you say you never know if what you are saying is right or wrong. 'you' are literally created, and are now stuck in, your own three way trillema.

To me, there is a very extremely simple and easy way of that what you created, but you obviously prefer to be "right" then actually do what is Truly Right.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 am

Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Proof is merely a state of definition.

If I have already proved some thing to you, then so be it. There is nothing more to say if it has already been proven to you. You now do not have to assume any thing at all regarding this. So, you can now stop making assumptions, like I have stopped doing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You proved your stance as strictly subjective.
Obviously, I stated my view as being strictly subjective. I did, after all, use the 'To me' words for that specific reason. After all, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, which by the way is one of many non assumed statements.
Actually you are still assuming it is subjective, the fact I can understand certain degrees of your dialogue lends a necessary objectivity.
But I am NOT assuming it is subjective. I wrote it specifically to show that it was strictly subjective. Even you said, "You proved your stance as strictly subjective", but now, after I agreed with you, you want to change and now say that really it is not strictly subjective but "lends a necessary objectivity".

You appear to behave and act like that one, which is at the moment, called "skepdick" in that when some one starts to agree with what you say you then change and try and argue for the other way.

Because the views and beliefs of both of you are based around some strange concept that some things can not be known you both have to keep changing your stance on things to prove your own beliefs and assumptions are correct.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
I specifically wrote 'to me, (the answer is) no' because I knew there are different views. So, I was not saying thee answer is no. I am saying, to me, the answer is no. Surely you understand this?
You are assuming you are not agreeing at all, when in fact your dialogue is purely assumed by a premise of "I".
What are you going on about now? I was certainly NEVER assuming I am not agreeing at all. I KNOW there are different views. Are you not aware of this fact yet? Your assumptions has, once again, let you down badly.

Also, my dialogue was NEVER assumed by a premise of "I". I specifically wrote to 'me', which MEANS the 'i', which obviously is NOT thee 'I'. These are obviously two very different things, which can be obviously observed. So, once again, your assumption is WRONG.

If 'you' mean them to be the same thing and believe that they are the same then, then that is ok. But just remember 'you' are not 'I'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
"I" is both a subjective and objective axiom, considering we all observe it.
How do propose that 'we' observe "I"? You have, after all, just made the assumption that "we all observe It".

Maybe if you start clarifying, by giving your definition for words like 'axiom', 'assumption', 'philosophy', 'I', then what you are trying to propose might become much more clearer. But as your words stand now what you are trying is not very clear at all to me.

The reason I wrote, "To me, no", to your question, "Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy? Yes, no, maybe", is because I obviously am using a completely different definition for the 'philosophy' word than you are. And, this contrary to what you believe is NOT an assumption.

If you really want to move onto subjectivity and objectivity, then we can. But I suggest that you come to forming a clear, concise, and correct version of your "argument" first.

As, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, it depends on how things are being observed whether there is a subjective view or an objective view being held.

Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
trillema rule 2....all axioms exist in a progressive continuum; hence cause variation.
Just because there is a "trillema problem", to you, that does not mean that there is an actual "trilemma problem", in Life, that has not already been resolved, by some.

Just because you call some thing a rule does not necessarily make it so.

Just because you say all axioms exist in a progressive continuum (and all axioms are assumptions) does not necessarily make it so.

Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
You assumed a negative stance.
Just to correct you, I never assumed a negative stance at all. What I did was, I took a negative stance, and for very good reason. But you assume and believe some thing else, so we will never move on from this.
No is an assumption, just as yes is one as well.
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

I am just trying to work out how you see things.

This prior statement is an assumption; hence is not contradictory by my stance due to its recursive nature of continual assumptions.[/color]

I am well aware that you believe that everything you say is an assumption. You HAVE TO do this because to do otherwise would be contradict your very firm stance.

Sadly though, ALL assumptions could be WRONG or partly wrong. Therefore, every thing you say could be WRONG or partly wrong.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am

That there are no assumptions.


As I have already stated, and which is now proven to be true and correct, you are assuming some thing completely wrong.
False,
Okay what were you assuming here that was not wrong?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
because wrongness is strictly a deficiency in a connection between assumptions...this does not negate the fact there are assumptions.
I have NEVER said that there are no assumptions. I have NEVER even assumed that there are no assumptions. To assume otherwise would be clearly WRONG.

So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Relative to the context of "all is assumption" under certain contexts, according to you, there are no assumptioms.
Of course there are assumptions. I have NEVER stated that there are no assumptions. In fact I have said that I make assumptions. I do not like to and continually try to take notice of my thoughts so that I do not make assumptions, but unfortunately some times I do make them, and far more regularly than I like to, I might add. Making just one assumption is far to more than I like, in my view.

Also, you CLEARLY make many upon many assumptions so OBVIOUSLY there ARE assumptions. If I did not already know why you make such ridiculous assumptions and believe certain things, then how you could actually arrive at the conclusion that "according to me there are no assumptions" would really baffle me.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Here is handy hint, if you stop making assumptions, then you will stop being so frequently wrong. But, unfortunately, you are unable to stop making assumptions because that then goes against your very own assumptions and beliefs about how all thinking is assumed. And, you would not, nor could not, go against what you already assume and believe is True.

Until you stop making assumptions and believing things you are unable to move forward.
False,
How do you know this is false?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
rule 2 observes all assumptions as a continuum in themselves. One assumption progresses to another assumption and this is what we call definition.
This is what YOU call definition. I certainly do NOT.

If one assumption progresses to another assumption, and all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, then I would suggest never making another assumption ever again.

I find just looking at and seeing the Truth of things far easier and simpler anyway than trying assume the truth of things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Definition is of course an assumption and the argument is an expanding or contracting circle.
Your argument is certainly expanding, but not getting anywhere other than deeper into contradiction and absurdity, from my perspective, and you are yet to even provide one definition for the words you are using. If, and when, you do that, then we will see what happens.

By the way circularity in that Answers circle back onto themselves, to verify and reaffirm themselves, in regards to Truth and Life, Itself, is not a bad thing at all. In fact, thee Truth does loop back onto Its own Self, providing more proof of HOW thee Truth is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Seeing and following thee circle of Life brings you, naturally, back on to the right track.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Thus we always have constant truth, but relativity is an angle of awareness...or rather just the relation of points, which is what an angle is primarily.
If this is what you believe, then so be it.

You can continue believing and assuming all you want. But what is it exactly that you are trying to express here in this thread?

What is the point of you trying to formulate an argument here?

I think you will find 'we', human beings' do not really always have constant truth. But I agree that thee Truth is constantly HERE/NOW for all to see, and understand.

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
Circular argument, law 3. Thought begins with a single point as empty mind, or originates with an empty mind observing a point, or the observation of many points as a form.

The point is a symbol.
You are mistaking the description of the thought for the thought. So you are still talking about language, not ontology.

A point is a symbol. It is a description. In the language of geometry a point describes a coordinate in an n-dimensional space.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
The point is also an empirical reality
No. It's abstract geometry/topology.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
Point space and thought are inseperable.
Obviously. Abstractions are inseparable from the mind that created them.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
Hence all reality as composed by symbols is a language.
Not all reality. All DESCRIPTIONS of reality are composed of symbols/language. I agree.

This is the view of model-dependent realists

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:59 am

Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm


This is just another one of YOUR assumptions, once again.
Yes and no. Yes from the angle I am presenting it, no because all truths are relegated to assumed axioms.
So, when I say the word 'no', then to you that is an assumption, but when you state some thing like above then that is and is not an assumption. Yet, you also say that every thing is an assumption.

All assumptions can only be defined by the repetition of one assumption through the variation of that assumption into a different assumption. This is assumption as a self referencing proof, considering proof is strictly definition.

You really do need to make yourself more clearer if you truly want to be heard and understood.

False, it is inevitable that some will understand me and others will not. This is considering understanding, under the trillema, exists through progressive variation.

Also how can there be an "assumed axiom"? To me that is a very obvious contradiction and oxymoron.

And why is that the case...you are assuming what a contradiction even is.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
When you stop making assumptions, then we can move on.
False,
How do you know it is false?

All falsity, is an absence of unity. For example, if I create an invention (an abstract pattern) that does not work in empirical reality (sensory phenomenon exist as patterns as well), then the two sets of patterns cannot connect. They contradict because of an inherent separation or lack or unity. They lack a symmetry between eachother.

You have to do some thing first before you will know it it works or not.

Until you stop making assumptions you will NEVER know if it is false or true.

And what is truth or falsity without making assumptions that must continue infinitely and circle back to themselves.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
I state all axioms are assumed. If I did not present my argument as also assumed I would contradict my own premises.
Which is exactly what you continually are doing.

Duh...because I am following my own premise...law 2...all is a continuum.

Your whole argument is based on an assumption, which to me is obviously WRONG, as well as being a truly stupid and ridiculous thing to do anyway.

So what...the argument exists.

You could not possibly even consider my point of view because you would then, as you say, have to contradict your own premises and view of things. And, you are never going to contradict your own views, would you? To do so would be very a contradictory and hypocritical thing to do.

And seriously...what is your point of view? You have not made it clear.

Also, is starting an argument with assumed premises, which obviously could be wrong and false in the beginning, really the right and best thing to do?

Point to me anything that does not start with an assumption.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
Are you saying that 'assuming'is the first law of the trillema?
All axioms are assumed is the often presented first law of the trillema.
"All axioms are assumed" is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself and therefore is nonsensical from the outset.

Why?

Who else, besides you, "often" presents such, to me, ridiculous first law of the tillema?

Also, saying what is "often" presumed does not answer my question about what is it that you are saying.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
But because this must be further explained given a continuum of definition, the second law applies simultaneously. All axioms are assumed because all assumptions are axiomatic necessitates the third law of the trillema existing simultaneously.
Even your own words in this "argument" you have speaks of the absurdity of this concept you have.

I do not even have to say any thing against what you are saying. You are fighting against and contradicting your own self here.

You are supporting my view about WHY it is much better to never make an assumption at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
The three laws exist simultaneously through eachother, hence any 1st, 2nd, 3rd is relative to the beginning starting point.
And correct me if a wrong, but you are not able to actually get anywhere because of this 1, 2, and 3 trillema right?

If this is right, then you have just proven yourself, and your "theory/argument", as being "right", so congratulations.

From my perspective with your own theory/argument you are not actually able to achieve any thing meaningful nor usefulness in Life. So, well done.

Also, of course, three laws exist simultaneously, that is why it is called a tri-llema. It is just three stupid laws existing simultaneously why it is called a "tri-llema problem".

If two, ridiculous and contradictory, laws exist simultaneously, then it would be called a "di-llema problem".

And, if three laws exist simultaneously through each other, then what does this mean or prove, other than these three laws exist simultaneously through each other?

It certainly does not mean nor prove that there is an actual "problem" here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:34 pm
What is it that you actually want to discuss here? You did, after all, say; "So for discussion", then asked a question and gave three options to answer.

I did my part, so let us now discuss.

To discuss I found if you clarify the things you say, then I gain a better understanding of what is that you want to say, and discuss.

Until I fully know what you are talking about when you say things like; "first law of trillema", etc, then we really have nothing to discuss.

Point number 2 describes the three laws...guess which is first.

But, if I guessed, then I would be assuming, and, if I started assuming, then I would be proving your theory/argument is "right", which is, by itself, a totally useless and meaningless theory/argument anyway.

I already agree with you, and have said countless times already, assuming things is NOT helpful at all.

For example, assuming "All axioms are assumed", besides being obviously contradictory and WRONG, is also NOT helpful at all.

All assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, so to say that all axioms are assumed is to say that all axioms could be wrong or partly wrong. Therefore, no matter what you say could be wrong or partly wrong and so you will NEVER know if what you are saying is right nor even partly right.

The only way your "theory" (or "argument", or whatever you are trying to say and propose here) is "right" is because as you say you never know if what you are saying is right or wrong. 'you' are literally created, and are now stuck in, your own three way trillema.

To me, there is a very extremely simple and easy way of that what you created, but you obviously prefer to be "right" then actually do what is Truly Right.
Okay, I got bored...you can answer the first responses because it will take you some time to put in progressive variations of "no" and "you are wrong".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:15 am

Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Proof is merely a state of definition.

If I have already proved some thing to you, then so be it. There is nothing more to say if it has already been proven to you. You now do not have to assume any thing at all regarding this. So, you can now stop making assumptions, like I have stopped doing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am

Obviously, I stated my view as being strictly subjective. I did, after all, use the 'To me' words for that specific reason. After all, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, which by the way is one of many non assumed statements.
Actually you are still assuming it is subjective, the fact I can understand certain degrees of your dialogue lends a necessary objectivity.
But I am NOT assuming it is subjective. I wrote it specifically to show that it was strictly subjective. Even you said, "You proved your stance as strictly subjective", but now, after I agreed with you, you want to change and now say that really it is not strictly subjective but "lends a necessary objectivity".

Yes, your premises are subjective to your point of origin. However, as they progress in definition we both come to an agreement and that begins objectivity. You can be strictly subjective in a stance, but still meet some common grounded when observing certain common core elements. I may have to elaborate.

You appear to behave and act like that one, which is at the moment, called "skepdick" in that when some one starts to agree with what you say you then change and try and argue for the other way.

Uh...no...I am much worse than him...he is a newbie at it.

Because the views and beliefs of both of you are based around some strange concept that some things can not be known you both have to keep changing your stance on things to prove your own beliefs and assumptions are correct.

I already have that in my premises...law 2 of trillema...continual variation. I am following my own premises. I stated them at the beginning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
I specifically wrote 'to me, (the answer is) no' because I knew there are different views. So, I was not saying thee answer is no. I am saying, to me, the answer is no. Surely you understand this?
You are assuming you are not agreeing at all, when in fact your dialogue is purely assumed by a premise of "I".
What are you going on about now? I was certainly NEVER assuming I am not agreeing at all. I KNOW there are different views. Are you not aware of this fact yet? Your assumptions has, once again, let you down badly.

Uh...I already stated all assumptions variate... law 2.

Also, my dialogue was NEVER assumed by a premise of "I". I specifically wrote to 'me', which MEANS the 'i', which obviously is NOT thee 'I'. These are obviously two very different things, which can be obviously observed. So, once again, your assumption is WRONG.

Still following the trillema...law 2.

If 'you' mean them to be the same thing and believe that they are the same then, then that is ok. But just remember 'you' are not 'I'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
"I" is both a subjective and objective axiom, considering we all observe it.
How do propose that 'we' observe "I"? You have, after all, just made the assumption that "we all observe It".

Maybe if you start clarifying, by giving your definition for words like 'axiom', 'assumption', 'philosophy', 'I', then what you are trying to propose might become much more clearer. But as your words stand now what you are trying is not very clear at all to me.

If I define assumption...that is an assumption...and that observes 1,2,3 of trillemma.



The reason I wrote, "To me, no", to your question, "Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy? Yes, no, maybe", is because I obviously am using a completely different definition for the 'philosophy' word than you are. And, this contrary to what you believe is NOT an assumption.

Law 2.

If you really want to move onto subjectivity and objectivity, then we can. But I suggest that you come to forming a clear, concise, and correct version of your "argument" first.

And what makes it clear and unclear? Clear to one is unclear to another, and vice versa.

As, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, it depends on how things are being observed whether there is a subjective view or an objective view being held.

Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.

Yes, law 2.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
trillema rule 2....all axioms exist in a progressive continuum; hence cause variation.
Just because there is a "trillema problem", to you, that does not mean that there is an actual "trilemma problem", in Life, that has not already been resolved, by some.

Okay...present it.

Just because you call some thing a rule does not necessarily make it so.

Actually...fuck yeah it does through sheer force.


Just because you say all axioms exist in a progressive continuum (and all axioms are assumptions) does not necessarily make it so.

Please continue defining this assumption, I don't understand you.

Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

And what is obvious is that which is assumed by a group.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am


Just to correct you, I never assumed a negative stance at all. What I did was, I took a negative stance, and for very good reason. But you assume and believe some thing else, so we will never move on from this.
You just followed law 2.

No is an assumption, just as yes is one as well.
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

I am just trying to work out how you see things.

Real simple: ⊙ ~ + • ... is part of the answer.

This prior statement is an assumption; hence is not contradictory by my stance due to its recursive nature of continual assumptions.[/color]

I am well aware that you believe that everything you say is an assumption. You HAVE TO do this because to do otherwise would be contradict your very firm stance.

Yes...it is firm and long and hard.

Sadly though, ALL assumptions could be WRONG or partly wrong. Therefore, every thing you say could be WRONG or partly wrong.

Wrong is an absence of connection between assumptions, which is initslef an assumption. Wrong, as seperation, is strictly a point of inversion where one phenomenon Inverts to another as many thus observing variation.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am


As I have already stated, and which is now proven to be true and correct, you are assuming some thing completely wrong.
False,
Okay what were you assuming here that was not wrong?

Will continue...low on time.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
because wrongness is strictly a deficiency in a connection between assumptions...this does not negate the fact there are assumptions.
I have NEVER said that there are no assumptions. I have NEVER even assumed that there are no assumptions. To assume otherwise would be clearly WRONG.

So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Relative to the context of "all is assumption" under certain contexts, according to you, there are no assumptioms.
Of course there are assumptions. I have NEVER stated that there are no assumptions. In fact I have said that I make assumptions. I do not like to and continually try to take notice of my thoughts so that I do not make assumptions, but unfortunately some times I do make them, and far more regularly than I like to, I might add. Making just one assumption is far to more than I like, in my view.

Also, you CLEARLY make many upon many assumptions so OBVIOUSLY there ARE assumptions. If I did not already know why you make such ridiculous assumptions and believe certain things, then how you could actually arrive at the conclusion that "according to me there are no assumptions" would really baffle me.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am
Here is handy hint, if you stop making assumptions, then you will stop being so frequently wrong. But, unfortunately, you are unable to stop making assumptions because that then goes against your very own assumptions and beliefs about how all thinking is assumed. And, you would not, nor could not, go against what you already assume and believe is True.

Until you stop making assumptions and believing things you are unable to move forward.
False,
How do you know this is false?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
rule 2 observes all assumptions as a continuum in themselves. One assumption progresses to another assumption and this is what we call definition.
This is what YOU call definition. I certainly do NOT.

If one assumption progresses to another assumption, and all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, then I would suggest never making another assumption ever again.

I find just looking at and seeing the Truth of things far easier and simpler anyway than trying assume the truth of things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Definition is of course an assumption and the argument is an expanding or contracting circle.
Your argument is certainly expanding, but not getting anywhere other than deeper into contradiction and absurdity, from my perspective, and you are yet to even provide one definition for the words you are using. If, and when, you do that, then we will see what happens.

By the way circularity in that Answers circle back onto themselves, to verify and reaffirm themselves, in regards to Truth and Life, Itself, is not a bad thing at all. In fact, thee Truth does loop back onto Its own Self, providing more proof of HOW thee Truth is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Seeing and following thee circle of Life brings you, naturally, back on to the right track.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Thus we always have constant truth, but relativity is an angle of awareness...or rather just the relation of points, which is what an angle is primarily.
If this is what you believe, then so be it.

You can continue believing and assuming all you want. But what is it exactly that you are trying to express here in this thread?

What is the point of you trying to formulate an argument here?

I think you will find 'we', human beings' do not really always have constant truth. But I agree that thee Truth is constantly HERE/NOW for all to see, and understand.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:18 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
Circular argument, law 3. Thought begins with a single point as empty mind, or originates with an empty mind observing a point, or the observation of many points as a form.

The point is a symbol.
You are mistaking the description of the thought for the thought. So you are still talking about language, not ontology.

You are using law 2.

A point is a symbol. It is a description. In the language of geometry a point describes a coordinate in an n-dimensional space.

So one cannot focus energy to a point or state at a point in spsce?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
The point is also an empirical reality
No. It's abstract geometry/topology.

Good, look at the corner of a square and tell me what you see. Look at the end of the jagged edges, if you look closer, and tell me what you see...you will always be left with a point.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
Point space and thought are inseperable.
Obviously. Abstractions are inseparable from the mind that created them.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:06 am
Hence all reality as composed by symbols is a language.
Not all reality. All DESCRIPTIONS of reality are composed of symbols/language. I agree.

This is the view of model-dependent realists

But not limited too.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:59 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm


Yes and no. Yes from the angle I am presenting it, no because all truths are relegated to assumed axioms.
So, when I say the word 'no', then to you that is an assumption, but when you state some thing like above then that is and is not an assumption. Yet, you also say that every thing is an assumption.

All assumptions can only be defined by the repetition of one assumption through the variation of that assumption into a different assumption. This is assumption as a self referencing proof, considering proof is strictly definition.

You really do need to make yourself more clearer if you truly want to be heard and understood.

False, it is inevitable that some will understand me and others will not. This is considering understanding, under the trillema, exists through progressive variation.

Also how can there be an "assumed axiom"? To me that is a very obvious contradiction and oxymoron.

And why is that the case...you are assuming what a contradiction even is.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm

False,
How do you know it is false?

All falsity, is an absence of unity. For example, if I create an invention (an abstract pattern) that does not work in empirical reality (sensory phenomenon exist as patterns as well), then the two sets of patterns cannot connect. They contradict because of an inherent separation or lack or unity. They lack a symmetry between eachother.

You have to do some thing first before you will know it it works or not.

Until you stop making assumptions you will NEVER know if it is false or true.

And what is truth or falsity without making assumptions that must continue infinitely and circle back to themselves.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
I state all axioms are assumed. If I did not present my argument as also assumed I would contradict my own premises.
Which is exactly what you continually are doing.

Duh...because I am following my own premise...law 2...all is a continuum.

Your whole argument is based on an assumption, which to me is obviously WRONG, as well as being a truly stupid and ridiculous thing to do anyway.

So what...the argument exists.

You could not possibly even consider my point of view because you would then, as you say, have to contradict your own premises and view of things. And, you are never going to contradict your own views, would you? To do so would be very a contradictory and hypocritical thing to do.

And seriously...what is your point of view? You have not made it clear.

Also, is starting an argument with assumed premises, which obviously could be wrong and false in the beginning, really the right and best thing to do?

Point to me anything that does not start with an assumption.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm


All axioms are assumed is the often presented first law of the trillema.
"All axioms are assumed" is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself and therefore is nonsensical from the outset.

Why?

Who else, besides you, "often" presents such, to me, ridiculous first law of the tillema?

Also, saying what is "often" presumed does not answer my question about what is it that you are saying.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
But because this must be further explained given a continuum of definition, the second law applies simultaneously. All axioms are assumed because all assumptions are axiomatic necessitates the third law of the trillema existing simultaneously.
Even your own words in this "argument" you have speaks of the absurdity of this concept you have.

I do not even have to say any thing against what you are saying. You are fighting against and contradicting your own self here.

You are supporting my view about WHY it is much better to never make an assumption at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm
The three laws exist simultaneously through eachother, hence any 1st, 2nd, 3rd is relative to the beginning starting point.
And correct me if a wrong, but you are not able to actually get anywhere because of this 1, 2, and 3 trillema right?

If this is right, then you have just proven yourself, and your "theory/argument", as being "right", so congratulations.

From my perspective with your own theory/argument you are not actually able to achieve any thing meaningful nor usefulness in Life. So, well done.

Also, of course, three laws exist simultaneously, that is why it is called a tri-llema. It is just three stupid laws existing simultaneously why it is called a "tri-llema problem".

If two, ridiculous and contradictory, laws exist simultaneously, then it would be called a "di-llema problem".

And, if three laws exist simultaneously through each other, then what does this mean or prove, other than these three laws exist simultaneously through each other?

It certainly does not mean nor prove that there is an actual "problem" here.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm



Point number 2 describes the three laws...guess which is first.

But, if I guessed, then I would be assuming, and, if I started assuming, then I would be proving your theory/argument is "right", which is, by itself, a totally useless and meaningless theory/argument anyway.

I already agree with you, and have said countless times already, assuming things is NOT helpful at all.

For example, assuming "All axioms are assumed", besides being obviously contradictory and WRONG, is also NOT helpful at all.

All assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, so to say that all axioms are assumed is to say that all axioms could be wrong or partly wrong. Therefore, no matter what you say could be wrong or partly wrong and so you will NEVER know if what you are saying is right nor even partly right.

The only way your "theory" (or "argument", or whatever you are trying to say and propose here) is "right" is because as you say you never know if what you are saying is right or wrong. 'you' are literally created, and are now stuck in, your own three way trillema.

To me, there is a very extremely simple and easy way of that what you created, but you obviously prefer to be "right" then actually do what is Truly Right.
Okay, I got bored...you can answer the first responses because it will take you some time to put in progressive variations of "no" and "you are wrong".
False. I am completely mistaken. You are absolutely 100% True, Right, AND Correct.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:00 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:15 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:08 am

If I have already proved some thing to you, then so be it. There is nothing more to say if it has already been proven to you. You now do not have to assume any thing at all regarding this. So, you can now stop making assumptions, like I have stopped doing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am

Actually you are still assuming it is subjective, the fact I can understand certain degrees of your dialogue lends a necessary objectivity.
But I am NOT assuming it is subjective. I wrote it specifically to show that it was strictly subjective. Even you said, "You proved your stance as strictly subjective", but now, after I agreed with you, you want to change and now say that really it is not strictly subjective but "lends a necessary objectivity".

Yes, your premises are subjective to your point of origin. However, as they progress in definition we both come to an agreement and that begins objectivity. You can be strictly subjective in a stance, but still meet some common grounded when observing certain common core elements. I may have to elaborate.

You appear to behave and act like that one, which is at the moment, called "skepdick" in that when some one starts to agree with what you say you then change and try and argue for the other way.

Uh...no...I am much worse than him...he is a newbie at it.

Because the views and beliefs of both of you are based around some strange concept that some things can not be known you both have to keep changing your stance on things to prove your own beliefs and assumptions are correct.

I already have that in my premises...law 2 of trillema...continual variation. I am following my own premises. I stated them at the beginning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am

You are assuming you are not agreeing at all, when in fact your dialogue is purely assumed by a premise of "I".
What are you going on about now? I was certainly NEVER assuming I am not agreeing at all. I KNOW there are different views. Are you not aware of this fact yet? Your assumptions has, once again, let you down badly.

Uh...I already stated all assumptions variate... law 2.

Also, my dialogue was NEVER assumed by a premise of "I". I specifically wrote to 'me', which MEANS the 'i', which obviously is NOT thee 'I'. These are obviously two very different things, which can be obviously observed. So, once again, your assumption is WRONG.

Still following the trillema...law 2.

If 'you' mean them to be the same thing and believe that they are the same then, then that is ok. But just remember 'you' are not 'I'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
"I" is both a subjective and objective axiom, considering we all observe it.
How do propose that 'we' observe "I"? You have, after all, just made the assumption that "we all observe It".

Maybe if you start clarifying, by giving your definition for words like 'axiom', 'assumption', 'philosophy', 'I', then what you are trying to propose might become much more clearer. But as your words stand now what you are trying is not very clear at all to me.

If I define assumption...that is an assumption...and that observes 1,2,3 of trillemma.



The reason I wrote, "To me, no", to your question, "Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy? Yes, no, maybe", is because I obviously am using a completely different definition for the 'philosophy' word than you are. And, this contrary to what you believe is NOT an assumption.

Law 2.

If you really want to move onto subjectivity and objectivity, then we can. But I suggest that you come to forming a clear, concise, and correct version of your "argument" first.

And what makes it clear and unclear? Clear to one is unclear to another, and vice versa.

As, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, it depends on how things are being observed whether there is a subjective view or an objective view being held.

Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.

Yes, law 2.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
trillema rule 2....all axioms exist in a progressive continuum; hence cause variation.
Just because there is a "trillema problem", to you, that does not mean that there is an actual "trilemma problem", in Life, that has not already been resolved, by some.

Okay...present it.

Just because you call some thing a rule does not necessarily make it so.

Actually...fuck yeah it does through sheer force.


Just because you say all axioms exist in a progressive continuum (and all axioms are assumptions) does not necessarily make it so.

Please continue defining this assumption, I don't understand you.

Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

And what is obvious is that which is assumed by a group.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm

You just followed law 2.

No is an assumption, just as yes is one as well.
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

I am just trying to work out how you see things.

Real simple: ⊙ ~ + • ... is part of the answer.

This prior statement is an assumption; hence is not contradictory by my stance due to its recursive nature of continual assumptions.[/color]

I am well aware that you believe that everything you say is an assumption. You HAVE TO do this because to do otherwise would be contradict your very firm stance.

Yes...it is firm and long and hard.

Sadly though, ALL assumptions could be WRONG or partly wrong. Therefore, every thing you say could be WRONG or partly wrong.

Wrong is an absence of connection between assumptions, which is initslef an assumption. Wrong, as seperation, is strictly a point of inversion where one phenomenon Inverts to another as many thus observing variation.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:44 pm

False,
Okay what were you assuming here that was not wrong?

Will continue...low on time.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
because wrongness is strictly a deficiency in a connection between assumptions...this does not negate the fact there are assumptions.
I have NEVER said that there are no assumptions. I have NEVER even assumed that there are no assumptions. To assume otherwise would be clearly WRONG.

So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Relative to the context of "all is assumption" under certain contexts, according to you, there are no assumptioms.
Of course there are assumptions. I have NEVER stated that there are no assumptions. In fact I have said that I make assumptions. I do not like to and continually try to take notice of my thoughts so that I do not make assumptions, but unfortunately some times I do make them, and far more regularly than I like to, I might add. Making just one assumption is far to more than I like, in my view.

Also, you CLEARLY make many upon many assumptions so OBVIOUSLY there ARE assumptions. If I did not already know why you make such ridiculous assumptions and believe certain things, then how you could actually arrive at the conclusion that "according to me there are no assumptions" would really baffle me.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am

False,
How do you know this is false?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
rule 2 observes all assumptions as a continuum in themselves. One assumption progresses to another assumption and this is what we call definition.
This is what YOU call definition. I certainly do NOT.

If one assumption progresses to another assumption, and all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, then I would suggest never making another assumption ever again.

I find just looking at and seeing the Truth of things far easier and simpler anyway than trying assume the truth of things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Definition is of course an assumption and the argument is an expanding or contracting circle.
Your argument is certainly expanding, but not getting anywhere other than deeper into contradiction and absurdity, from my perspective, and you are yet to even provide one definition for the words you are using. If, and when, you do that, then we will see what happens.

By the way circularity in that Answers circle back onto themselves, to verify and reaffirm themselves, in regards to Truth and Life, Itself, is not a bad thing at all. In fact, thee Truth does loop back onto Its own Self, providing more proof of HOW thee Truth is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Seeing and following thee circle of Life brings you, naturally, back on to the right track.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am
Thus we always have constant truth, but relativity is an angle of awareness...or rather just the relation of points, which is what an angle is primarily.
If this is what you believe, then so be it.

You can continue believing and assuming all you want. But what is it exactly that you are trying to express here in this thread?

What is the point of you trying to formulate an argument here?

I think you will find 'we', human beings' do not really always have constant truth. But I agree that thee Truth is constantly HERE/NOW for all to see, and understand.
You are Right. Absolutely every thing you have said is an assumption, which obviously could be completely wrong, and all of it is just expressions and defined by all of the other assumptions that you have made, which obviously could also be completely wrong as well, which all leads back onto its own circle of absurdity.

Therefore I now agree wholeheartedly with you that what you are saying could be completely and utterly WRONG and as such is just one circle of the absurd.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am

Age wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:15 am
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 am





But I am NOT assuming it is subjective. I wrote it specifically to show that it was strictly subjective. Even you said, "You proved your stance as strictly subjective", but now, after I agreed with you, you want to change and now say that really it is not strictly subjective but "lends a necessary objectivity".

Yes, your premises are subjective to your point of origin. However, as they progress in definition we both come to an agreement and that begins objectivity. You can be strictly subjective in a stance, but still meet some common grounded when observing certain common core elements. I may have to elaborate.

You appear to behave and act like that one, which is at the moment, called "skepdick" in that when some one starts to agree with what you say you then change and try and argue for the other way.

Uh...no...I am much worse than him...he is a newbie at it.

Because the views and beliefs of both of you are based around some strange concept that some things can not be known you both have to keep changing your stance on things to prove your own beliefs and assumptions are correct.

I already have that in my premises...law 2 of trillema...continual variation. I am following my own premises. I stated them at the beginning.



What are you going on about now? I was certainly NEVER assuming I am not agreeing at all. I KNOW there are different views. Are you not aware of this fact yet? Your assumptions has, once again, let you down badly.

Uh...I already stated all assumptions variate... law 2.

Also, my dialogue was NEVER assumed by a premise of "I". I specifically wrote to 'me', which MEANS the 'i', which obviously is NOT thee 'I'. These are obviously two very different things, which can be obviously observed. So, once again, your assumption is WRONG.

Still following the trillema...law 2.

If 'you' mean them to be the same thing and believe that they are the same then, then that is ok. But just remember 'you' are not 'I'.



How do propose that 'we' observe "I"? You have, after all, just made the assumption that "we all observe It".

Maybe if you start clarifying, by giving your definition for words like 'axiom', 'assumption', 'philosophy', 'I', then what you are trying to propose might become much more clearer. But as your words stand now what you are trying is not very clear at all to me.

If I define assumption...that is an assumption...and that observes 1,2,3 of trillemma.



The reason I wrote, "To me, no", to your question, "Does the trillema sets the foundation for philosophy? Yes, no, maybe", is because I obviously am using a completely different definition for the 'philosophy' word than you are. And, this contrary to what you believe is NOT an assumption.

Law 2.

If you really want to move onto subjectivity and objectivity, then we can. But I suggest that you come to forming a clear, concise, and correct version of your "argument" first.

And what makes it clear and unclear? Clear to one is unclear to another, and vice versa.

As, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, it depends on how things are being observed whether there is a subjective view or an objective view being held.

Also, if you did not have such closed views you would come to understand WHY my answer is no, especially when your answer is so obviously different. The very reason WHY we give such different and opposing answers is already obvious, well to me anyway.

Yes, law 2.



Just because there is a "trillema problem", to you, that does not mean that there is an actual "trilemma problem", in Life, that has not already been resolved, by some.

Okay...present it.

Just because you call some thing a rule does not necessarily make it so.

Actually...fuck yeah it does through sheer force.


Just because you say all axioms exist in a progressive continuum (and all axioms are assumptions) does not necessarily make it so.

Please continue defining this assumption, I don't understand you.

Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

And what is obvious is that which is assumed by a group.



If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

I am just trying to work out how you see things.

Real simple: ⊙ ~ + • ... is part of the answer.

This prior statement is an assumption; hence is not contradictory by my stance due to its recursive nature of continual assumptions.[/color]

I am well aware that you believe that everything you say is an assumption. You HAVE TO do this because to do otherwise would be contradict your very firm stance.

Yes...it is firm and long and hard.

Sadly though, ALL assumptions could be WRONG or partly wrong. Therefore, every thing you say could be WRONG or partly wrong.

Wrong is an absence of connection between assumptions, which is initslef an assumption. Wrong, as seperation, is strictly a point of inversion where one phenomenon Inverts to another as many thus observing variation.






Okay what were you assuming here that was not wrong?

Will continue...low on time.



I have NEVER said that there are no assumptions. I have NEVER even assumed that there are no assumptions. To assume otherwise would be clearly WRONG.

So, again, your assumption here is completely WRONG.



Of course there are assumptions. I have NEVER stated that there are no assumptions. In fact I have said that I make assumptions. I do not like to and continually try to take notice of my thoughts so that I do not make assumptions, but unfortunately some times I do make them, and far more regularly than I like to, I might add. Making just one assumption is far to more than I like, in my view.

Also, you CLEARLY make many upon many assumptions so OBVIOUSLY there ARE assumptions. If I did not already know why you make such ridiculous assumptions and believe certain things, then how you could actually arrive at the conclusion that "according to me there are no assumptions" would really baffle me.




How do you know this is false?



This is what YOU call definition. I certainly do NOT.

If one assumption progresses to another assumption, and all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, then I would suggest never making another assumption ever again.

I find just looking at and seeing the Truth of things far easier and simpler anyway than trying assume the truth of things.



Your argument is certainly expanding, but not getting anywhere other than deeper into contradiction and absurdity, from my perspective, and you are yet to even provide one definition for the words you are using. If, and when, you do that, then we will see what happens.

By the way circularity in that Answers circle back onto themselves, to verify and reaffirm themselves, in regards to Truth and Life, Itself, is not a bad thing at all. In fact, thee Truth does loop back onto Its own Self, providing more proof of HOW thee Truth is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Seeing and following thee circle of Life brings you, naturally, back on to the right track.



If this is what you believe, then so be it.

You can continue believing and assuming all you want. But what is it exactly that you are trying to express here in this thread?

What is the point of you trying to formulate an argument here?

I think you will find 'we', human beings' do not really always have constant truth. But I agree that thee Truth is constantly HERE/NOW for all to see, and understand.
You are Right. Absolutely every thing you have said is an assumption, which obviously could be completely wrong, and all of it is just expressions and defined by all of the other assumptions that you have made, which obviously could also be completely wrong as well, which all leads back onto its own circle of absurdity.

Therefore I now agree wholeheartedly with you that what you are saying could be completely and utterly WRONG and as such is just one circle of the absurd.
I already argued my stance is an assumption, just as all other stances are assumptions. Explain why yours is not an assumption and not all truth is assumed.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am
Age wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:15 am
You are Right. Absolutely every thing you have said is an assumption, which obviously could be completely wrong, and all of it is just expressions and defined by all of the other assumptions that you have made, which obviously could also be completely wrong as well, which all leads back onto its own circle of absurdity.

Therefore I now agree wholeheartedly with you that what you are saying could be completely and utterly WRONG and as such is just one circle of the absurd.
I already argued my stance is an assumption, just as all other stances are assumptions.
I know you have already attempted to argue your stance is just an assumption. I agreed with the absurdity of what you are doing. Did you not see this?

To me all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, and as your so called "argument" stands it could be completely WRONG. I also agree with you on this truth.

Unfortunately, for you, your "argument" is not sound and/or not valid, and therefore it is not even really worth looking at again.

I accept that you believe that all stances are assumptions. But just because you believe some thing that does not mean that there is any actual real truth in it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am
Explain why yours is not an assumption and not all truth is assumed.
Have I made an argument?

If yes, then what is it?

To explain why not all truth is assumed, then I would need to know how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. If I recall correctly I ask you to define some words earlier, and you have yet to do this. So, at the moment, I have no actual real idea of what it is that you are saying, and are asking for.

I also asked you some clarifying questions earlier as well, and if you had answered them openly and honestly, then WHY not all truth is assumed would already have been understood.

Earlier I wrote:
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

And then I wrote:
I am just trying to work out how you see things.

SO, answer the question, AND THEN is that answer an assumption, a truth, or both?

Either way, explain your answer now, and then that will help me in explaining to you how not all truth is assumed.

I also gave you some thing to think about:
Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

If you try to dispute that each person can view things in different and varied ways, then you are in dispute with another, and that means that you have a different or varied view than another person. Therefore, this is a Truth, and thus not at all assumed.

Now I have provided two different examples of how not all truth is assumed. So, what we are left with is discovering and learning how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. Until then I am not able to further explain how, from my perspective, not all truth is assumed, which will help you.

Are you at all aware that if you believe that 'all truth is assumed', then there is absolutely nothing in this Universe that could show nor prove to you otherwise anyway?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:34 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am
Age wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:00 am


You are Right. Absolutely every thing you have said is an assumption, which obviously could be completely wrong, and all of it is just expressions and defined by all of the other assumptions that you have made, which obviously could also be completely wrong as well, which all leads back onto its own circle of absurdity.

Therefore I now agree wholeheartedly with you that what you are saying could be completely and utterly WRONG and as such is just one circle of the absurd.
I already argued my stance is an assumption, just as all other stances are assumptions.
I know you have already attempted to argue your stance is just an assumption. I agreed with the absurdity of what you are doing. Did you not see this?

I understand your position, but tell me what absurdity is exactly so I understand your position better.

To me all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, and as your so called "argument" stands it could be completely WRONG. I also agree with you on this truth.

Even if I run a scientific experiment, and get a result, the result is only an assumption considering any new experiment can redefine the result. Facts are merely interpretations, and all interpretations are assumed.

It is absurd to say a fact is certain.


Assumption ia absolute truth, because they are a constant. The question is "what is the most universal assumption?


Unfortunately, for you, your "argument" is not sound and/or not valid, and therefore it is not even really worth looking at again.

Define validity without assuming a premise.


I accept that you believe that all stances are assumptions. But just because you believe some thing that does not mean that there is any actual real truth in it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:05 am
Explain why yours is not an assumption and not all truth is assumed.
Have I made an argument?

Have you?

If yes, then what is it?

You mostly just say "no", "you are wrong", etc. This is law 2...continual regress.

To explain why not all truth is assumed, then I would need to know how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. If I recall correctly I ask you to define some words earlier, and you have yet to do this. So, at the moment, I have no actual real idea of what it is that you are saying, and are asking for.

If I define, truth or assumed...I would have to connect them to other truths and assumptions. Thus truth and assumption are grounded in the repetition of themselves through various other words.

I also asked you some clarifying questions earlier as well, and if you had answered them openly and honestly, then WHY not all truth is assumed would already have been understood.

All truth is assumed.


Earlier I wrote:
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?

And then I wrote:
I am just trying to work out how you see things.

SO, answer the question, AND THEN is that answer an assumption, a truth, or both?

Did I eat breakfast this morning?

Actually I can give you a an answer based upon empirical life...quite literally from a few minutes ago.

My girlfriend is in the phillipines.

When I talk to her on facebook, I say good morning/evening. We both laugh about it, because we are dealing with a paradox.

It is morning where I am at, evening where she is at.

So when I eat breakfast, it is morning the the context of my position in time and space. In the context of her time and space it is evening.

The time of my eating breakfast is premised in the assumed point if origin. From my position it is morning, hers it is evening....one could question if it is even breakfast at all from her position in time and space alone.

What defines the timing of my eating is the assumed point of origins. From my point, the meal is connected to certain other variables such as the time in clock, position of the sun, schedule ahead of the day. These variables are connected to other variables. Such as the position of the sun assumes I am seeing it (ie can see it), as well as seeing it from a specific angle relative to the horizon, as well as my other senses (smell of air, etc.). This further assumes I am connecting these variable in a certain manner through the abstract senses (thought, emotion).

And vice versa for her.

Now if I assume a different point of awareness, where both of us are right (it is evening and morning simultaneously from the perspective of looking at the earth as a localized "whole" in space), what I am doing is observing how certain variables are connected from a new point of assumption.

If I go back to either assumption a certain disconnection in variables are observed. From her point of view I am eating breakfast in the evening. From mine the morning. Morning is disconnected from one position, evening from another...as well as the variables which are connected respectively with each.

The point of awareness, is always assumed, much like the simple "point" is always assumed.



Either way, explain your answer now, and then that will help me in explaining to you how not all truth is assumed.



I also gave you some thing to think about:
Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.

Yes, it is true, but it is also an assumption as this is a point of awareness as well. All perspectives as continually diverging necessates a common point of awareness...ie seperation must be objectively observed

In these respects there is always a common bond.

However what constitutes separation can be viewed seperately

All assumptions are simultaneously true and false. What we observe as true is the connection of variables within a given context with the context being assumed.



If you try to dispute that each person can view things in different and varied ways, then you are in dispute with another, and that means that you have a different or varied view than another person. Therefore, this is a Truth, and thus not at all assumed.

Agreed, but still an assumption, as the agreement still requires a group observed assumption.

Now I have provided two different examples of how not all truth is assumed. So, what we are left with is discovering and learning how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. Until then I am not able to further explain how, from my perspective, not all truth is assumed, which will help you.

Are you at all aware that if you believe that 'all truth is assumed', then there is absolutely nothing in this Universe that could show nor prove to you otherwise anyway?

You are assuming proof is universally agreed upon. Proof is defintion (assumed) within a given context (assumed). This is an assumption. Both truth and falsity exist as assumptions, and exist by how they are defined (connected and separated from other assumptions) in themselves.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests