What I Believe

[Sculptor]

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

What do you mean. "Truth" in "it"?

2. That which exists is that which is observed.

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

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

What do you believe?

Mental phenomena are NOT observable. By your rubric they do not even exist.

1. That there is a relation through which one underlying phenomenon repeats across many.

That is not an answer

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

Nonesense. Nothing to do with what you already said

3. Mental phenomenon are observed through thoughts.

No they are not observed but experienced.

All empirical phenomena, as reducible to memories (given all observations are of past events), are observed through the mind.

No. You do not know the meaining of basic words

[Skepdick]

What do you believe?

I believe that I do not have any beliefs.

Is that a belief or a non-belief?

[Eodnhoj7]

What do you mean. "Truth" in "it"?

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

Mental phenomena are NOT observable. By your rubric they do not even exist.

1. That there is a relation through which one underlying phenomenon repeats across many.

That is not an answer

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

Nonesense. Nothing to do with what you already said

3. Mental phenomenon are observed through thoughts.

No they are not observed but experienced.

All empirical phenomena, as reducible to memories (given all observations are of past events), are observed through the mind.

No. You do not know the meaining of basic words

1. Yes it is, truth is a relation of parts through a common underlying medium which connect them.

2. False again, the universe as self aware through reflectivity necessitates all phenomena as observed therefore existing.

3. You cannot experience something without observing it.

4. False again, to observe something empirically is to reduce all empirical phenomenon to memories (therefore thought) given constant change results in us observing consistency of empirical phenomena only through memory.

[Eodnhoj7]

What do you believe?

I believe that I do not have any beliefs.

Is that a belief or a non-belief?

It is a grade of belief given the statement is a contradiction. All contradictions are grounded in truth values which oppose eachother yet are truth values regardless. It is a fragmented belief.

[Skepdick]

It is a grade of belief given the statement is a contradiction. All contradictions are grounded in truth values which oppose eachother yet are truth values regardless. It is a fragmented belief.

It's not a contradiction. Contradictions only arise when you assign truth-values. That is also the source of fragmentation (truth vs false).

Don't assign a truth-value. Assign meaning.

Understand that the sentence "I believe that I have no beliefs" is meaningful irrespective of its truth value.

This is the error of all Philosophy.

Meaning precedes truth because one must ask (and answer) the question: "What does it mean for something to be true?"

[Eodnhoj7]

It is a grade of belief given the statement is a contradiction. All contradictions are grounded in truth values which oppose eachother yet are truth values regardless. It is a fragmented belief.

It's not a contradiction. Contradictions only arise when you assign truth-values. That is also the source of fragmentation (truth vs false).

Don't assign a truth-value. Assign meaning.

Understand that the sentence "I believe that I have no beliefs" is meaningful irrespective of its truth value.

This is the error of all Philosophy.

Meaning precedes truth because one must ask (and answer) the question: "What does it mean for something to be true?"

Truth values are inseperable from meaning given a "truth value" is a binding of phenomena through relations and "meaning" is the pointing of one phenomenon through another...thus binding phenomenon under a set of relations between the pointer and that which is pointed too.

The statement "I believe I have no beliefs" is contextual and as such is incomplete. It is true that one may have no beliefs on a specific subject, yet have beliefs on another. The statement thus has a truth value when defined by another context.

Dually "I believe I have no beliefs" points to nothing thus is absent of meaning.



Your question is relative, one may dually ask "what is the truth of meaning?" Meaning does not precede truth, it is codependent with it.

[Age]

1. A point may unfold to many different things yet regardless of what it unfolds as a point is a point.

And, as I just said:
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.

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

See, there REALLY is MANY DIFFERENT 'points'.

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

LOL 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE about what my ACTUAL FULL VIEW IS.

Just for your information, you could NOT be FURTHER FROM thee ACTUAL here, either.

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

If you say so.

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

And, what is 'the point', which you are so desperately 'trying to' say, relay, and relate here?

5. Actually you have not explained everything.

I had NEVER even thought I had, let alone even said I had.

You have not explained how everything changes.

This is partly because NO one has even asked me to.

Dually the multiple versions of EVERY thing, everything and Everything mirror eachother thus show a common source. Their supposed differences result from the same source expressed under different contexts.

OF COURSE, there can ONLY EVER be One True SOURCE.

1. A point as many different things is the point unfolding to further points. One point expressed though many, just in the same manner you equating the difference of points under one point.

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

No it is not. It is a FACT, which obviously can NOT be refuted.

3. The point is universal.

[Eodnhoj7]

And, as I just said:
BUT, 'a point' can be MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.

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

See, there REALLY is MANY DIFFERENT 'points'.


LOL 'you' HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE about what my ACTUAL FULL VIEW IS.

Just for your information, you could NOT be FURTHER FROM thee ACTUAL here, either.


If you say so.


And, what is 'the point', which you are so desperately 'trying to' say, relay, and relate here?


I had NEVER even thought I had, let alone even said I had.



This is partly because NO one has even asked me to.


OF COURSE, there can ONLY EVER be One True SOURCE.

1. A point as many different things is the point unfolding to further points. One point expressed though many, just in the same manner you equating the difference of points under one point.

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

No it is not. It is a FACT, which obviously can NOT be refuted.

3. The point is universal.

No, it is your method of interpretation given all facts rely on some proof in order to justify them and proof, according to you, is determined by the individual, thus is subjective.

[Age]

1. A point as many different things is the point unfolding to further points. One point expressed though many, just in the same manner you equating the difference of points under one point.

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

No it is not. It is a FACT, which obviously can NOT be refuted.

3. The point is universal.

No, it is your method of interpretation given all facts rely on some proof in order to justify them and proof, according to you, is determined by the individual, thus is subjective.

This CLAIM of yours is not even close to thee ACTUAL truth of things.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, it is your method of interpretation given all facts rely on some proof in order to justify them and proof, according to you, is determined by the individual, thus is subjective.

This CLAIM of yours is not even close to thee ACTUAL truth of things.

Yes it is....get over it. You said: 'Proof' is whatever 'one' defines 'proof' as, to "them".

[Age]

No, it is your method of interpretation given all facts rely on some proof in order to justify them and proof, according to you, is determined by the individual, thus is subjective.

This CLAIM of yours is not even close to thee ACTUAL truth of things.

Yes it is....get over it. You said: 'Proof' is whatever 'one' defines 'proof' as, to "them".

Is that the ONLY thing you said and CLAIMED?

IF no, then what could this mean, to you?

[Eodnhoj7]

This CLAIM of yours is not even close to thee ACTUAL truth of things.

Yes it is....get over it. You said: 'Proof' is whatever 'one' defines 'proof' as, to "them".

Is that the ONLY thing you said and CLAIMED?

IF no, then what could this mean, to you?

Facts are determined by proof...get over it.

[Age]

Yes it is....get over it. You said: 'Proof' is whatever 'one' defines 'proof' as, to "them".

Is that the ONLY thing you said and CLAIMED?

IF no, then what could this mean, to you?

Facts are determined by proof...get over it.

Are you not able to get over the FACT that your CLAIM is WRONG, which was PROVED?

[Eodnhoj7]

Is that the ONLY thing you said and CLAIMED?

IF no, then what could this mean, to you?

Facts are determined by proof...get over it.

Are you not able to get over the FACT that your CLAIM is WRONG, which was PROVED?

And of the many claims I made which one is false?

[Age]

Facts are determined by proof...get over it.

Are you not able to get over the FACT that your CLAIM is WRONG, which was PROVED?

And of the many claims I made which one is false?

The, at least, one of your claims, which is false, is that what I said, according to me, means thus is subjective.

That was your interpretation only.