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

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:51 am
But, If your answers are trying to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed, and, if your answers are not trying to prove my example is false, then my example stands as true, thus 'not assumed'.
False, what I am observing is that your assumptions are disconnected but still exist as assumptions.
Disconnected from what exactly?

If you knew what my example of 'what is not assumed' was, then you would see that this is not false at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
What do you assume that my supposed and alleged assumptions are disconnected from exactly?
I never assumed any such thing. I never alluded to any such thing. I have never even thought any such thing. Therefore, this is just another example of how wrong you can be, when you assume things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:08 am
Copy and paste with my responses or shut up.
Why?

Is it impossible for you to do it?

You have not shown any evidence that you are even aware of my example of 'what is not assumed', so maybe that is why you want me to do it for you?

Also, is telling me to "shut up" your last resort?

You want to assert that every thing is assumed, but obviously you can not prove this. Whereas I can and have already proved that not every thing is assumed. It now appears that you do not like this fact, but the only come back you have left now is; "shut up".
You said I ignored your examples:
Did I? Or, are you just assuming that? which obviously could be wrong. Have I, instead, just been questioning you in regards to, If you are even aware of what my example of 'what is not assumed' is?

You have yet to show any evidence that you are even remotely aware of what my example is. But you could very easily and simply prove that you are aware of what it is by just repeating the same example, that is; if you so wish to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
I want you to copy and paste the responses...otherwise "shut up because you are a liar" is the next best option.
You are free to assume and believe any thing you want to.

If you choose to believe that I am a liar for just asking you the clarifying question; Do you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is? Then that is perfectly fine with me.

Either you can answer the question or you can not. Either way is of no real concern to me. I am not the one here who is asserting some thing and trying to make up an argument for some thing, which I believe is absolutely true and right. I have absolutely nothing to prove here.

I am just asking you if you know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is or not?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
You assume everything, by neither believe nor not belief, where reality is taken as is. Taken as is, means it is both defined and undefined as definition and definition are how reality manifests itself.
If this is what you believe, then so be it. You are free to assume absolutely every thing and any thing, if you so wish to. But if you will not accept that not all of us do what you tell us we do, then you will just have to continue assuming otherwise.

To me, what you wrote here just appears to be a very convoluted, complicated, and confused way to express what IS essentially just very simple and easy.

By the way, are you at all aware that what you are saying is the truth of things, and what you are saying happens, really does occur?

However, by your own standards, if what you are saying really is what occurs, and is thus 'taken as is', then that means that what IS true and right must already be known by you and already be really true. But, if this is the case, then what you are saying can not be assumed, which would then refute every thing you are saying about how every thing is assumed.

To me, every thing you have been saying is true, in a sense. It is a truth of things. But, there is thee absolute Truth of things, which overrides your human being perspective of the truth of things. Of course what you are saying is a truth for what human beings do. Human beings only assume things, by defining things with assumed definitions, and they do this recursively. So, I accept this and agree with you, up to a certain extent. You, human beings, are STUCK in this absurd assumed defined cycle, which you insist is what occurs. HOWEVER, IF you are fighting so strongly for this, then that infers that you already KNOW what the actual and real truth of things IS. How do you KNOW this?

And, by the way, If you already KNOW what the truth IS, then you would NOT have to assume the truth of things.

There is an inner-KNOWING to what is Right and Wrong in Life and to what is True and False in Life.

When you human beings come together peacefully, find out what 'it' IS that you ALL agree on and accept as being True and Right, Wrong and False, then that is WHEN the actual and real Truth of things is found and discovered, or, revealed and uncovered.

Is it logical to insist that you KNOW what is right and true but then also insist that you do NOT know what is right and true and what you are insisting is really just an assumption?

By definition, an 'assumption' is just more or less a guess at what IS, which obviously could very well be WRONG.

If some thing can be proven as true, then it is not assumed. It is the truth.

NOT every thing is assumed.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:51 am
But, If your answers are trying to prove my example is false, then you are trying to prove that not every thing is assumed, and, if your answers are not trying to prove my example is false, then my example stands as true, thus 'not assumed'.
False, what I am observing is that your assumptions are disconnected but still exist as assumptions.
Disconnected from what exactly?

If you knew what my example of 'what is not assumed' was, then you would see that this is not false at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
What do you assume that my supposed and alleged assumptions are disconnected from exactly?
I never assumed any such thing. I never alluded to any such thing. I have never even thought any such thing. Therefore, this is just another example of how wrong you can be, when you assume things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:51 am


Why?

Is it impossible for you to do it?

You have not shown any evidence that you are even aware of my example of 'what is not assumed', so maybe that is why you want me to do it for you?

Also, is telling me to "shut up" your last resort?

You want to assert that every thing is assumed, but obviously you can not prove this. Whereas I can and have already proved that not every thing is assumed. It now appears that you do not like this fact, but the only come back you have left now is; "shut up".
You said I ignored your examples:
Did I? Or, are you just assuming that? which obviously could be wrong. Have I, instead, just been questioning you in regards to, If you are even aware of what my example of 'what is not assumed' is?

You have yet to show any evidence that you are even remotely aware of what my example is. But you could very easily and simply prove that you are aware of what it is by just repeating the same example, that is; if you so wish to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
I want you to copy and paste the responses...otherwise "shut up because you are a liar" is the next best option.
You are free to assume and believe any thing you want to.

If you choose to believe that I am a liar for just asking you the clarifying question; Do you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is? Then that is perfectly fine with me.

Either you can answer the question or you can not. Either way is of no real concern to me. I am not the one here who is asserting some thing and trying to make up an argument for some thing, which I believe is absolutely true and right. I have absolutely nothing to prove here.

I am just asking you if you know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is or not?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
You assume everything, by neither believe nor not belief, where reality is taken as is. Taken as is, means it is both defined and undefined as definition and definition are how reality manifests itself.
If this is what you believe, then so be it. You are free to assume absolutely every thing and any thing, if you so wish to. But if you will not accept that not all of us do what you tell us we do, then you will just have to continue assuming otherwise.

To me, what you wrote here just appears to be a very convoluted, complicated, and confused way to express what IS essentially just very simple and easy.

By the way, are you at all aware that what you are saying is the truth of things, and what you are saying happens, really does occur?

However, by your own standards, if what you are saying really is what occurs, and is thus 'taken as is', then that means that what IS true and right must already be known by you and already be really true. But, if this is the case, then what you are saying can not be assumed, which would then refute every thing you are saying about how every thing is assumed.

To me, every thing you have been saying is true, in a sense. It is a truth of things. But, there is thee absolute Truth of things, which overrides your human being perspective of the truth of things. Of course what you are saying is a truth for what human beings do. Human beings only assume things, by defining things with assumed definitions, and they do this recursively. So, I accept this and agree with you, up to a certain extent. You, human beings, are STUCK in this absurd assumed defined cycle, which you insist is what occurs. HOWEVER, IF you are fighting so strongly for this, then that infers that you already KNOW what the actual and real truth of things IS. How do you KNOW this?

And, by the way, If you already KNOW what the truth IS, then you would NOT have to assume the truth of things.

There is an inner-KNOWING to what is Right and Wrong in Life and to what is True and False in Life.

When you human beings come together peacefully, find out what 'it' IS that you ALL agree on and accept as being True and Right, Wrong and False, then that is WHEN the actual and real Truth of things is found and discovered, or, revealed and uncovered.

Is it logical to insist that you KNOW what is right and true but then also insist that you do NOT know what is right and true and what you are insisting is really just an assumption?

By definition, an 'assumption' is just more or less a guess at what IS, which obviously could very well be WRONG.

If some thing can be proven as true, then it is not assumed. It is the truth.

NOT every thing is assumed.
I read the last sentence...you assumed I would bother reading.

You can assume I will not until you copy and paste.

Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:16 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm


False, what I am observing is that your assumptions are disconnected but still exist as assumptions.
Disconnected from what exactly?

If you knew what my example of 'what is not assumed' was, then you would see that this is not false at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
What do you assume that my supposed and alleged assumptions are disconnected from exactly?
I never assumed any such thing. I never alluded to any such thing. I have never even thought any such thing. Therefore, this is just another example of how wrong you can be, when you assume things.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm


You said I ignored your examples:
Did I? Or, are you just assuming that? which obviously could be wrong. Have I, instead, just been questioning you in regards to, If you are even aware of what my example of 'what is not assumed' is?

You have yet to show any evidence that you are even remotely aware of what my example is. But you could very easily and simply prove that you are aware of what it is by just repeating the same example, that is; if you so wish to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
I want you to copy and paste the responses...otherwise "shut up because you are a liar" is the next best option.
You are free to assume and believe any thing you want to.

If you choose to believe that I am a liar for just asking you the clarifying question; Do you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is? Then that is perfectly fine with me.

Either you can answer the question or you can not. Either way is of no real concern to me. I am not the one here who is asserting some thing and trying to make up an argument for some thing, which I believe is absolutely true and right. I have absolutely nothing to prove here.

I am just asking you if you know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is or not?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:24 pm
You assume everything, by neither believe nor not belief, where reality is taken as is. Taken as is, means it is both defined and undefined as definition and definition are how reality manifests itself.
If this is what you believe, then so be it. You are free to assume absolutely every thing and any thing, if you so wish to. But if you will not accept that not all of us do what you tell us we do, then you will just have to continue assuming otherwise.

To me, what you wrote here just appears to be a very convoluted, complicated, and confused way to express what IS essentially just very simple and easy.

By the way, are you at all aware that what you are saying is the truth of things, and what you are saying happens, really does occur?

However, by your own standards, if what you are saying really is what occurs, and is thus 'taken as is', then that means that what IS true and right must already be known by you and already be really true. But, if this is the case, then what you are saying can not be assumed, which would then refute every thing you are saying about how every thing is assumed.

To me, every thing you have been saying is true, in a sense. It is a truth of things. But, there is thee absolute Truth of things, which overrides your human being perspective of the truth of things. Of course what you are saying is a truth for what human beings do. Human beings only assume things, by defining things with assumed definitions, and they do this recursively. So, I accept this and agree with you, up to a certain extent. You, human beings, are STUCK in this absurd assumed defined cycle, which you insist is what occurs. HOWEVER, IF you are fighting so strongly for this, then that infers that you already KNOW what the actual and real truth of things IS. How do you KNOW this?

And, by the way, If you already KNOW what the truth IS, then you would NOT have to assume the truth of things.

There is an inner-KNOWING to what is Right and Wrong in Life and to what is True and False in Life.

When you human beings come together peacefully, find out what 'it' IS that you ALL agree on and accept as being True and Right, Wrong and False, then that is WHEN the actual and real Truth of things is found and discovered, or, revealed and uncovered.

Is it logical to insist that you KNOW what is right and true but then also insist that you do NOT know what is right and true and what you are insisting is really just an assumption?

By definition, an 'assumption' is just more or less a guess at what IS, which obviously could very well be WRONG.

If some thing can be proven as true, then it is not assumed. It is the truth.

NOT every thing is assumed.
I read the last sentence...you assumed I would bother reading.
Are you trying to look STUPID. I did NOT assume any such thing. It seems to be that just about every obvious assumption you make it is inevitably WRONG.

I really do NOT care if you read or do not read.

I have ALREADY proven that your argument/theory does NOT work the way you are proposing it. End of story.

Your inability to see and make known my example of 'what is not assumed' backs up and supports my view on how the brain works. This view you are helping to prove. So, again, end of story.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am
You can assume I will not until you copy and paste.
How would you KNOW if I copy and pasted IF you do NOT read EVERY thing I write?

I can assume any thing, but I do NOT like to assume any thing, so I certainly will NOT be assuming what you said I can here.

If you do not read this, then I will be just as happy as if you did. Either way I really do NOT care.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:08 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:16 am


Disconnected from what exactly?

If you knew what my example of 'what is not assumed' was, then you would see that this is not false at all.



I never assumed any such thing. I never alluded to any such thing. I have never even thought any such thing. Therefore, this is just another example of how wrong you can be, when you assume things.



Did I? Or, are you just assuming that? which obviously could be wrong. Have I, instead, just been questioning you in regards to, If you are even aware of what my example of 'what is not assumed' is?

You have yet to show any evidence that you are even remotely aware of what my example is. But you could very easily and simply prove that you are aware of what it is by just repeating the same example, that is; if you so wish to.



You are free to assume and believe any thing you want to.

If you choose to believe that I am a liar for just asking you the clarifying question; Do you even know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is? Then that is perfectly fine with me.

Either you can answer the question or you can not. Either way is of no real concern to me. I am not the one here who is asserting some thing and trying to make up an argument for some thing, which I believe is absolutely true and right. I have absolutely nothing to prove here.

I am just asking you if you know what my example of 'what is not assumed' is or not?



If this is what you believe, then so be it. You are free to assume absolutely every thing and any thing, if you so wish to. But if you will not accept that not all of us do what you tell us we do, then you will just have to continue assuming otherwise.

To me, what you wrote here just appears to be a very convoluted, complicated, and confused way to express what IS essentially just very simple and easy.

By the way, are you at all aware that what you are saying is the truth of things, and what you are saying happens, really does occur?

However, by your own standards, if what you are saying really is what occurs, and is thus 'taken as is', then that means that what IS true and right must already be known by you and already be really true. But, if this is the case, then what you are saying can not be assumed, which would then refute every thing you are saying about how every thing is assumed.

To me, every thing you have been saying is true, in a sense. It is a truth of things. But, there is thee absolute Truth of things, which overrides your human being perspective of the truth of things. Of course what you are saying is a truth for what human beings do. Human beings only assume things, by defining things with assumed definitions, and they do this recursively. So, I accept this and agree with you, up to a certain extent. You, human beings, are STUCK in this absurd assumed defined cycle, which you insist is what occurs. HOWEVER, IF you are fighting so strongly for this, then that infers that you already KNOW what the actual and real truth of things IS. How do you KNOW this?

And, by the way, If you already KNOW what the truth IS, then you would NOT have to assume the truth of things.

There is an inner-KNOWING to what is Right and Wrong in Life and to what is True and False in Life.

When you human beings come together peacefully, find out what 'it' IS that you ALL agree on and accept as being True and Right, Wrong and False, then that is WHEN the actual and real Truth of things is found and discovered, or, revealed and uncovered.

Is it logical to insist that you KNOW what is right and true but then also insist that you do NOT know what is right and true and what you are insisting is really just an assumption?

By definition, an 'assumption' is just more or less a guess at what IS, which obviously could very well be WRONG.

If some thing can be proven as true, then it is not assumed. It is the truth.

NOT every thing is assumed.
I read the last sentence...you assumed I would bother reading.
Are you trying to look STUPID. I did NOT assume any such thing. It seems to be that just about every obvious assumption you make it is inevitably WRONG.

I really do NOT care if you read or do not read.

I have ALREADY proven that your argument/theory does NOT work the way you are proposing it. End of story.

Your inability to see and make known my example of 'what is not assumed' backs up and supports my view on how the brain works. This view you are helping to prove. So, again, end of story.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am
You can assume I will not until you copy and paste.
How would you KNOW if I copy and pasted IF you do NOT read EVERY thing I write?

I can assume any thing, but I do NOT like to assume any thing, so I certainly will NOT be assuming what you said I can here.

If you do not read this, then I will be just as happy as if you did. Either way I really do NOT care.
Copy and paste.

Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:08 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am

I read the last sentence...you assumed I would bother reading.
Are you trying to look STUPID. I did NOT assume any such thing. It seems to be that just about every obvious assumption you make it is inevitably WRONG.

I really do NOT care if you read or do not read.

I have ALREADY proven that your argument/theory does NOT work the way you are proposing it. End of story.

Your inability to see and make known my example of 'what is not assumed' backs up and supports my view on how the brain works. This view you are helping to prove. So, again, end of story.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:40 am
You can assume I will not until you copy and paste.
How would you KNOW if I copy and pasted IF you do NOT read EVERY thing I write?

I can assume any thing, but I do NOT like to assume any thing, so I certainly will NOT be assuming what you said I can here.

If you do not read this, then I will be just as happy as if you did. Either way I really do NOT care.
Copy and paste.
Are making another assumption here?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:42 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:08 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:30 am


Are you trying to look STUPID. I did NOT assume any such thing. It seems to be that just about every obvious assumption you make it is inevitably WRONG.

I really do NOT care if you read or do not read.

I have ALREADY proven that your argument/theory does NOT work the way you are proposing it. End of story.

Your inability to see and make known my example of 'what is not assumed' backs up and supports my view on how the brain works. This view you are helping to prove. So, again, end of story.



How would you KNOW if I copy and pasted IF you do NOT read EVERY thing I write?

I can assume any thing, but I do NOT like to assume any thing, so I certainly will NOT be assuming what you said I can here.

If you do not read this, then I will be just as happy as if you did. Either way I really do NOT care.
Copy and paste.
Are making another assumption here?
Are you?

Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:42 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:08 am


Copy and paste.
Are making another assumption here?
Are you?
Are you assuming just asking a clarifying question is an assumption?

If yes, then explain how asking a question for clarification is making an assumption.

What do you assume the assumption is, which you assume is being made?

To me, asking a clarifying question, from a truly open perspective, is how to NOT make any assumption at all.

By the way, what exactly do you want to copy and paste?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:23 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:42 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:22 am


Are making another assumption here?
Are you?
Are you assuming just asking a clarifying question is an assumption?

You assume I understand the words, that the question is correct within a certain context, that the question is the right context at all, the basic words forming it are assumed based on prior knowledge which is assumed...etc.

If yes, then explain how asking a question for clarification is making an assumption.

further assumptions stemming from the original assumption.

What do you assume the assumption is, which you assume is being made?

That the statement is both assumption and grounded in assumptions as assumption that leads to further assumptions.

To me, asking a clarifying question, from a truly open perspective, is how to NOT make any assumption at all.

You are assuming to you. A clarifying question, leads to further assumptions as extensions of the prior assumption with clarity, as an increase in definition, being the recursion of assumptions where the core assumption exists in a continual variation.

By the way, what exactly do you want to copy and paste?

The several statements you provided stating where not assumptions, as well as my responses....and you can throw in a copy and paste after that where you accuse me of not addressing them.

Then you can talk about how you are set in your ways of thinking because the brain is wired in such a way as you claim.


Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:23 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:42 am

Are you?
Are you assuming just asking a clarifying question is an assumption?

You assume I understand the words, that the question is correct within a certain context, that the question is the right context at all, the basic words forming it are assumed based on prior knowledge which is assumed...etc.

If yes, then explain how asking a question for clarification is making an assumption.

further assumptions stemming from the original assumption.

What do you assume the assumption is, which you assume is being made?

That the statement is both assumption and grounded in assumptions as assumption that leads to further assumptions.

To me, asking a clarifying question, from a truly open perspective, is how to NOT make any assumption at all.

You are assuming to you. A clarifying question, leads to further assumptions as extensions of the prior assumption with clarity, as an increase in definition, being the recursion of assumptions where the core assumption exists in a continual variation.

By the way, what exactly do you want to copy and paste?

The several statements you provided stating where not assumptions, as well as my responses....and you can throw in a copy and paste after that where you accuse me of not addressing them.



Then you can talk about how you are set in your ways of thinking because the brain is wired in such a way as you claim.


You said you were going to copy and paste. So, what happened?

AGAIN, I NEVER said any such things as you are assuming and proposing here. You could not be more WRONG even if you tried to be.

You have even WRONGLY assumed what my example of 'what is not assumed' is.

Remember you MISSED it and still have not responded to it.

Did you forget you can not refute it because if you did, then what you are saying here would be refuted at the same time.

You are STUCK.

Your theory has ALREADY been falsified, and, your argument has ALREADY been shown to be unsound and invalid.

And all I did was just provide what you asked for, which was; an example of 'what is not assumed'.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:08 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:23 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:01 am


Are you assuming just asking a clarifying question is an assumption?

You assume I understand the words, that the question is correct within a certain context, that the question is the right context at all, the basic words forming it are assumed based on prior knowledge which is assumed...etc.

If yes, then explain how asking a question for clarification is making an assumption.

further assumptions stemming from the original assumption.

What do you assume the assumption is, which you assume is being made?

That the statement is both assumption and grounded in assumptions as assumption that leads to further assumptions.

To me, asking a clarifying question, from a truly open perspective, is how to NOT make any assumption at all.

You are assuming to you. A clarifying question, leads to further assumptions as extensions of the prior assumption with clarity, as an increase in definition, being the recursion of assumptions where the core assumption exists in a continual variation.

By the way, what exactly do you want to copy and paste?

The several statements you provided stating where not assumptions, as well as my responses....and you can throw in a copy and paste after that where you accuse me of not addressing them.



Then you can talk about how you are set in your ways of thinking because the brain is wired in such a way as you claim.


You said you were going to copy and paste. So, what happened?

AGAIN, I NEVER said any such things as you are assuming and proposing here. You could not be more WRONG even if you tried to be.

You have even WRONGLY assumed what my example of 'what is not assumed' is.

Remember you MISSED it and still have not responded to it.

Did you forget you can not refute it because if you did, then what you are saying here would be refuted at the same time.

You are STUCK.

Your theory has ALREADY been falsified, and, your argument has ALREADY been shown to be unsound and invalid.

And all I did was just provide what you asked for, which was; an example of 'what is not assumed'.
What happened is I am on an iPad and not in front of a computer and dont know when I will be

So tell you what, I will just look up the page and section and put the numbers in a new post.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:13 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:23 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:01 am


Are you assuming just asking a clarifying question is an assumption?

You assume I understand the words, that the question is correct within a certain context, that the question is the right context at all, the basic words forming it are assumed based on prior knowledge which is assumed...etc.

If yes, then explain how asking a question for clarification is making an assumption.

further assumptions stemming from the original assumption.

What do you assume the assumption is, which you assume is being made?

That the statement is both assumption and grounded in assumptions as assumption that leads to further assumptions.

To me, asking a clarifying question, from a truly open perspective, is how to NOT make any assumption at all.

You are assuming to you. A clarifying question, leads to further assumptions as extensions of the prior assumption with clarity, as an increase in definition, being the recursion of assumptions where the core assumption exists in a continual variation.

By the way, what exactly do you want to copy and paste?

The several statements you provided stating where not assumptions, as well as my responses....and you can throw in a copy and paste after that where you accuse me of not addressing them.



Then you can talk about how you are set in your ways of thinking because the brain is wired in such a way as you claim.


You said you were going to copy and paste. So, what happened?

AGAIN, I NEVER said any such things as you are assuming and proposing here. You could not be more WRONG even if you tried to be.

You have even WRONGLY assumed what my example of 'what is not assumed' is.

Remember you MISSED it and still have not responded to it.

Did you forget you can not refute it because if you did, then what you are saying here would be refuted at the same time.

You are STUCK.

Your theory has ALREADY been falsified, and, your argument has ALREADY been shown to be unsound and invalid.

And all I did was just provide what you asked for, which was; an example of 'what is not assumed'.
Page 4 first post.

Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:13 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:23 pm

You said you were going to copy and paste. So, what happened?

AGAIN, I NEVER said any such things as you are assuming and proposing here. You could not be more WRONG even if you tried to be.

You have even WRONGLY assumed what my example of 'what is not assumed' is.

Remember you MISSED it and still have not responded to it.

Did you forget you can not refute it because if you did, then what you are saying here would be refuted at the same time.

You are STUCK.

Your theory has ALREADY been falsified, and, your argument has ALREADY been shown to be unsound and invalid.

And all I did was just provide what you asked for, which was; an example of 'what is not assumed'.
Page 4 first post.
Did you assume that I would look it up?

I have already told you that they ARE not the example I have been talking about. But because you say you do not read what I wrote then you would have missed this also. You would have also missed where I have said that I agree with you.

You asked for an example. I just provided one. If you even try to refute it, then you refute your own theory and argument. It really is that simple.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:13 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:13 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:22 pm



You said you were going to copy and paste. So, what happened?

AGAIN, I NEVER said any such things as you are assuming and proposing here. You could not be more WRONG even if you tried to be.

You have even WRONGLY assumed what my example of 'what is not assumed' is.

Remember you MISSED it and still have not responded to it.

Did you forget you can not refute it because if you did, then what you are saying here would be refuted at the same time.

You are STUCK.

Your theory has ALREADY been falsified, and, your argument has ALREADY been shown to be unsound and invalid.

And all I did was just provide what you asked for, which was; an example of 'what is not assumed'.
Page 4 first post.
Did you assume that I would look it up?

I have already told you that they ARE not the example I have been talking about. But because you say you do not read what I wrote then you would have missed this also. You would have also missed where I have said that I agree with you.

You asked for an example. I just provided one. If you even try to refute it, then you refute your own theory and argument. It really is that simple.
You assumed it was not there, it was there all along. Also If you reread the chronological order, I stated I did not read what you wrote (multiple times) because of your assumption I never addressed your examples...which page four response proving this is false as each point has a response to it.

You actually provided multiple examples and the "one" was defined.

Actually I am not refuting anything of my own argument.

I will provide an example....make sure to actually look at point 2.

• will be assumed as symbol for "an assumption".

Example:

1. This statement is not assumed.

2. •(•(•T•h•i•s) •(•s•t•a•t•e•m•e•n•t) •(•i•s) •(•n•o•t) •(•a•s•s•u•m•e•d) •.)

3. This statement appears as a contradiction because it is self negating. This is considering if I state it is not assumed, and it is assumed, the statement is both an assumption and not assumption.

4. However it is always an assumption, therefore its nature as false or contradictory is it is incomplete in defintion due to an absense of context.

5. If I include a new context to define it: "This statement is not an assumption because the word assumption is not observed the same chain of symbols in x language". ...then the statement is no longer a contradiction by first glance. However, paradoxically it is still a contradiction because it is undefined by "x". Contradiction is a deficiency in definition, an absense or order as the connection of one assumption to another. X could be a variable observing the word assumption as "supposition" in French. In this case certain chains of symbols, letters in this case, do exist...just not all of them. So again the assumption is both true and false because of context.

6. All assumptions are simultaneously true and false because of context.

7. Thus "no assumption" is true because relative to another context this is not an assumption in symbol, but it is always an assumption as is.

8. Assumptions are thus symbols in nature considering the nature of the symbol, as a form, is assumed as is where this form is always not just taken as is but observes the point of awareness, the linear definition and circularity of the statement as necessitating assumption is an actual form.

Age
Posts: 3147
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 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:13 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:12 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:13 pm


Page 4 first post.
Did you assume that I would look it up?

I have already told you that they ARE not the example I have been talking about. But because you say you do not read what I wrote then you would have missed this also. You would have also missed where I have said that I agree with you.

You asked for an example. I just provided one. If you even try to refute it, then you refute your own theory and argument. It really is that simple.
You assumed it was not there, it was there all along. Also If you reread the chronological order, I stated I did not read what you wrote (multiple times) because of your assumption I never addressed your examples...which page four response proving this is false as each point has a response to it.

You actually provided multiple examples and the "one" was defined.

Actually I am not refuting anything of my own argument.

I will provide an example....make sure to actually look at point 2.

• will be assumed as symbol for "an assumption".

Example:

1. This statement is not assumed.

2. •(•(•T•h•i•s) •(•s•t•a•t•e•m•e•n•t) •(•i•s) •(•n•o•t) •(•a•s•s•u•m•e•d) •.)

3. This statement appears as a contradiction because it is self negating. This is considering if I state it is not assumed, and it is assumed, the statement is both an assumption and not assumption.

4. However it is always an assumption, therefore its nature as false or contradictory is it is incomplete in defintion due to an absense of context.

5. If I include a new context to define it: "This statement is not an assumption because the word assumption is not observed the same chain of symbols in x language". ...then the statement is no longer a contradiction by first glance. However, paradoxically it is still a contradiction because it is undefined by "x". Contradiction is a deficiency in definition, an absense or order as the connection of one assumption to another. X could be a variable observing the word assumption as "supposition" in French. In this case certain chains of symbols, letters in this case, do exist...just not all of them. So again the assumption is both true and false because of context.

6. All assumptions are simultaneously true and false because of context.

7. Thus "no assumption" is true because relative to another context this is not an assumption in symbol, but it is always an assumption as is.

8. Assumptions are thus symbols in nature considering the nature of the symbol, as a form, is assumed as is where this form is always not just taken as is but observes the point of awareness, the linear definition and circularity of the statement as necessitating assumption is an actual form.
You are still mistaken as you keep missing things.

Also, have you proven that absolutely EVERY thing is an assumption?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
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 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:17 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:07 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:13 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:12 am


Did you assume that I would look it up?

I have already told you that they ARE not the example I have been talking about. But because you say you do not read what I wrote then you would have missed this also. You would have also missed where I have said that I agree with you.

You asked for an example. I just provided one. If you even try to refute it, then you refute your own theory and argument. It really is that simple.
You assumed it was not there, it was there all along. Also If you reread the chronological order, I stated I did not read what you wrote (multiple times) because of your assumption I never addressed your examples...which page four response proving this is false as each point has a response to it.

You actually provided multiple examples and the "one" was defined.

Actually I am not refuting anything of my own argument.

I will provide an example....make sure to actually look at point 2.

• will be assumed as symbol for "an assumption".

Example:

1. This statement is not assumed.

2. •(•(•T•h•i•s) •(•s•t•a•t•e•m•e•n•t) •(•i•s) •(•n•o•t) •(•a•s•s•u•m•e•d) •.)

3. This statement appears as a contradiction because it is self negating. This is considering if I state it is not assumed, and it is assumed, the statement is both an assumption and not assumption.

4. However it is always an assumption, therefore its nature as false or contradictory is it is incomplete in defintion due to an absense of context.

5. If I include a new context to define it: "This statement is not an assumption because the word assumption is not observed the same chain of symbols in x language". ...then the statement is no longer a contradiction by first glance. However, paradoxically it is still a contradiction because it is undefined by "x". Contradiction is a deficiency in definition, an absense or order as the connection of one assumption to another. X could be a variable observing the word assumption as "supposition" in French. In this case certain chains of symbols, letters in this case, do exist...just not all of them. So again the assumption is both true and false because of context.

6. All assumptions are simultaneously true and false because of context.

7. Thus "no assumption" is true because relative to another context this is not an assumption in symbol, but it is always an assumption as is.

8. Assumptions are thus symbols in nature considering the nature of the symbol, as a form, is assumed as is where this form is always not just taken as is but observes the point of awareness, the linear definition and circularity of the statement as necessitating assumption is an actual form.
You are still mistaken as you keep missing things.

Of course many of my assumptions are disconnected, but it does not necessitate all assumptions are not connected as assumptions.

Also, have you proven that absolutely EVERY thing is an assumption?

"All" is assumed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests