Singularity is Non-Sense (Unable to be Sensed)

[Dontaskme]

To who?

To Mr and Mrs Ambidextrous.

Since you appear to know, then maybe you are the better one to answer the clarifying question, correct?

The only thing I no is that I no no thing.

To know is to no.

From know to no. .From no to know .. is the same no.

I do not have to make a deal with no, or swap places with no to no.

[Age]

To Mr and Mrs Ambidextrous.

Since you appear to know, then maybe you are the better one to answer the clarifying question, correct?

The only thing I no is that I no no thing.

To know is to no.

From know to no. .From no to know .. is the same no.

I do not have to make a deal with no, or swap places with no to no.

Okay.

[Age]

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

Very well said.

No 'thing' can define 'no-thing'

'I' can and DO define 'no-thing' AND 'nothing'.

No 'thing' has any meaning or definition without attaching an 'OUGHT'
Nothing can be thought about only as an abstract thing, but nothing isn't a thing, no - thing.

[Dontaskme]

'I' can and DO define 'no-thing' AND 'nothing'.

I is a known thing.

Things know no thing.

''Doing'' another understanding for ''knowing'' which is another understanding for SEEING is ONE directional.......
..... meaning IT IS no one.

[Age]

'I' can and DO define 'no-thing' AND 'nothing'.

I is a known thing.

So what?

ALL 'things' are known things.

Things know no thing.

This is correct and great to see 'you' are IN AGREEMENT with 'Me'.

The 'thing' 'Me' can define 'no thing' and also KNOWS 'no thing', and because "others" can also this, literally, MEANS - Things know 'no thing'

Also, the 'thing' "dontaskme" may not know ANY 'thing'.

But there ARE human beings who DO KNOW 'things'.

So, obviously, and once again, your claim here "dontaskme" is True, Right, AND Correct AS WELL AS being False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

It all just depends on HOW or WHICH WAY one wants to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. After all, absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer - 'I'.

''Doing'' another understanding for ''knowing'' which is another understanding for SEEING is ONE directional.......
..... meaning IT IS no one.

WHO is, supposedly and allegedly, 'no one', "dontaskme"?

[Dontaskme]

WHO is, supposedly and allegedly, 'no one', "dontaskme"?

'no one' is the same as saying 'no thing' .....'no one asks' - 'no one answers'

'No thing' is not important nor is it unimportant...

Importance only occurs within 'the dream of separation'.

Without the dream of separation there simply is no thing...

No one to ask and no thing to be answered.

Except in this conception..the dream of separation.

'No separation' is plain and simple. The rest is extraneous metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is utterly irrelevant.

.

[Age]

WHO is, supposedly and allegedly, 'no one', "dontaskme"?

'no one' is the same as saying 'no thing' .....'no one asks' - 'no one answers'

'No thing' is not important nor is it unimportant...

Importance only occurs within 'the dream of separation'.

Without the dream of separation there simply is no thing...

But it is only with your own made up separation where 'things' "exist" or appear.

No one to ask and no thing to be answered.

Except in this conception..the dream of separation.

'No separation' is plain and simple. The rest is extraneous metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is utterly irrelevant.

.

Are your words relevant?

[Eodnhoj7]

In the OBVIOUS 'totality of SOME Thing' are you ABLE TO logically explain and/or show WHY there NECESSARILY HAS TO BE 'infinite fullness/emptiness', and, HOW there could even be, this alleged and supposed, 'infinite fullness/emptiness'?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

OBVIOUSLY there IS 'fullness' AND 'emptiness' in this SOME 'Thing' known as TOTALITY, Everything, or Universe, but YOUR CLAIM that, by nature, there necessitates INFINITE 'fullness/emptiness' seems rather absurd and illogical, well to me anyway. BUT, maybe you are ABLE TO explain this apparent INCONSISTENT CONTRADICTION. We shall just have to WAIT and SEE.

1. Only being exists and this being has no contrast as there is only being; as absent of contrast it is indefinite thus infinite. The fullness of being and the emptiness of being are both forms of being that are indefinite, thus infinite, as only being exists.

2. What does not contradict?

94. To who?

Does it matter?

[Eodnhoj7]

Infinite fullness and infinite emptiness are both indefinite and lack form therefore are "no-thing" (ie an absence of thingness).

Very well said.

No 'thing' can define 'no-thing'

'I' can and DO define 'no-thing' AND 'nothing'.

No 'thing' has any meaning or definition without attaching an 'OUGHT'
Nothing can be thought about only as an abstract thing, but nothing isn't a thing, no - thing.

But can you define "define" without ending in a self-referential paradox that is indefinite?

[Age]

1. Only being exists and this being has no contrast as there is only being; as absent of contrast it is indefinite thus infinite. The fullness of being and the emptiness of being are both forms of being that are indefinite, thus infinite, as only being exists.

2. What does not contradict?

94. To who?

Does it matter?

YES, BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' IS RELATIVE.

[Age]

Very well said.

No 'thing' can define 'no-thing'

'I' can and DO define 'no-thing' AND 'nothing'.

No 'thing' has any meaning or definition without attaching an 'OUGHT'
Nothing can be thought about only as an abstract thing, but nothing isn't a thing, no - thing.

But can you define "define" without ending in a self-referential paradox that is indefinite?

YES.

Can you NOT?

[Eodnhoj7]

94. To who?

Does it matter?

YES, BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' IS RELATIVE.

That is an absolute truth, as it is unchanging, thus you contradict yourself.

[Eodnhoj7]

'I' can and DO define 'no-thing' AND 'nothing'.

But can you define "define" without ending in a self-referential paradox that is indefinite?

YES.

Can you NOT?

Then do it.

[Age]

Does it matter?

YES, BECAUSE EVERY 'thing' IS RELATIVE.

That is an absolute truth, as it is unchanging, thus you contradict yourself.

Will you provide the ACTUAL 'thing', which I am, supposedly, contradicting?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

But can you define "define" without ending in a self-referential paradox that is indefinite?

YES.

Can you NOT?

Then do it.

You can keep TELLING me what TO DO but that will NOT get you ANYWHERE with me.

Also, were you NOT ABLE to answer this CLARIFYING QUESTION AS WELL?