No-thing is absolute

[Eodnhoj7]

1. There is a totality of being.

2. This totality is "one" as it is everything.

3. "Everything" however necessitates a multiplicity as it infers "all things".

4. One is a summation of multiples.

5. As a summation of multiples multiples exist.

6. Given that multiples exist each multiple is an individual as multiplicity is the contrast of one individual to another.

7. Each multiple, as an individual, is one.

8. The totality of being, as one, is composed of further ones.

9. "One through ones" and "ones through one" is one as self-referential, therefore one is without contrast.

10. One is indefinite.

11. As indefinite it equates to zero as zero is indefinite; furthermore one and zero equate to infinity as infinity is indefinite.

12. Indefiniteness is absolute as it is irreducible thus unchanging; this is seen in point 9 as reducing one results in one just as the reduction of a particle leads to (a) further particle(s).

13. Indefiniteness equates to "no-thing" as both are an absence of thingness.

14. "No-thing" is absolute.

[Age]

"No-thing" is absolute.

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. There is a totality of being.
........
14. "No-thing" is absolute.

Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

[Impenitent]

vodka can be absolut...

-Imp

[Walker]

vodka can be absolut...

-Imp

Vodka is a compounded thing. So is everything else.

Whatever is not compounded, is not a thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

"No-thing" is absolute.

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

"No-thing is absolute" is relative to how it is expressed however the relativity of the expression points to the absence of thingness across all of its expressions as "no-thingness" is indefinite as well as the number of ways "no-thingness" can be observed is indefinite. The indefiniteness of no thingness and the indefiniteness of the number of perceptions of no-thingness necessitate both the perception and no-thing as equivocating.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. There is a totality of being.
........
14. "No-thing" is absolute.

Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

[Age]

"No-thing" is absolute.

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

"No-thing is absolute" is relative to how it is expressed however the relativity of the expression points to the absence of thingness across all of its expressions as "no-thingness" is indefinite as well as the number of ways "no-thingness" can be observed is indefinite.

But this is OBVIOUSLY False, as so-called 'no-thingness'is DEFINED, and thus DEFINTE, in relation to 'something-ness'.

The indefiniteness of no thingness and the indefiniteness of the number of perceptions of no-thingness necessitate both the perception and no-thing as equivocating.

[Eodnhoj7]

Including the claim, " "No-thing" is absolute ", as it just "eodnhoj7's" relational truth only.

"No-thing is absolute" is relative to how it is expressed however the relativity of the expression points to the absence of thingness across all of its expressions as "no-thingness" is indefinite as well as the number of ways "no-thingness" can be observed is indefinite.

But this is OBVIOUSLY False, as so-called 'no-thingness'is DEFINED, and thus DEFINTE, in relation to 'something-ness'.

The indefiniteness of no thingness and the indefiniteness of the number of perceptions of no-thingness necessitate both the perception and no-thing as equivocating.

The dependency of a positive upon a negative, and vice-versa, necessitates both being one and the same. Contrast is thus contradictory as it is self-defeating. The greatest contradiction is unity as unity is without comparison but is comparison.

The contrast between "nothingness" and "somethingness" is self-referential thus undefined. In shorter terms "nothingness" and "somethingness" require contrast but contrast is undefined without further contrast. "Nothingness" and "somethingness" are grounded in nothing. However with further contrast, necessary for "contrast" to be defined, a self-referentiality occurs resulting in no-contrast....this is a paradox.

In different terms one definition through another definition results in the absence of comparison of definition, due to self-referentiality, therefore vagueness.

In even shorter terms: Reality is a contradiction, this statement is a contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

vodka can be absolut...

-Imp

Vodka is a compounded thing. So is everything else.

Whatever is not compounded, is not a thing.

A thing resulting in another thing is "thing" being self-referential thus indefinite; paradoxically thingness results in no-thingness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. There is a totality of being.
........
14. "No-thing" is absolute.

Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your presentation is not efficient without a definition of 'what is absolute'.

Effectively, this 'absolute' must be in the philosophical perspective [Google Dictionary],

• noun: PHILOSOPHY
  1. noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes
  a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  
  2. something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  
  3. noun: the absolute
  ultimate reality; God.
  noun: Absolute; noun: the Absolute

I presume you are referring to 1 and 2 where what is 'absolute' is
-totally unconditioned to other things,
-not dependent on anything else, and
-not related to other things

Thus,
Reality is "ALL there is" i.e. "ALL things there is".
In this case, all things are intricately part and parcel of reality.
As such all things are related to other things in this context.
While not obvious, it is a fact, all things are linked and interdependent of one another.
As such all things are conditioned upon one another.

Therefore NO 'thing' within reality [all things there is] can be absolute [as defined above].

In addition,
humans are 'things' of reality, i.e. all there is or all things there is.
As such reality cannot be independent of humans in whatever ways.

Whatever is perceived as independent from humans is merely apparent.
Such apparent independence [illusory] is merely a necessity to facilitate survival in the primal and current age but not for the future.
Anyone who claim reality is independent of humans [minds, etc.] is wrong on such subtle philosophical reality [Peter Holmes, Pantflasher, et. al.]

1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. The totality of being is without comparison thus absolute as it is non-relative. The totality of being is both a thing, as it is 1, and no-thing, as it is without comparison. The totality is all opposites thus is a contradiction.

2. All things are relative thus makes one thing relative to another thing thus "thing" becomes self-referential and without contrast; without contrast "thing" becomes indefinite and as indefinite becomes no-thing and as no-thing becomes absolute. No-thing is absolute as there is no change in no-thing.

3. "All things are a part or parcel of reality", with reality being a "thing" necessitates, "All things are part or parcel of [thingness[" thus "thing" becomes self-referential. As self-referential there is no comparison thus further resulting in "thingness" becoming "no-thing".

WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

If I were to make a claim a thing exists as real, I will rely on the authority of the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings where necessary.

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

If the scientific FSK conclude the Sun exists, it is a thing existing based on the scientific FSK which is the most credible fact at present.
In this case, there is 'some thing' as qualified.
Thus the existence of a thing is possible as qualified to the scientific FSK.
How can you insist there is 'no thing'.

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

Yes, I agree to the above.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

Meta-FSKs are not significant in this case.
Whatever is qualified as a thing from the scientific FSK can be translated to utility [subject avoiding abuses] for mankind which is the critical issue.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

Pass.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

Never, whatever derived from a FSK is by default conditional.

[Eodnhoj7]

WHO are you to claim the above? or
on whose authority do you rely upon to make the above claims?

I don't see how self-referential is relevant to the issue.

• In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.
  -WIKI

There is no absoluteness with a thing.
Whatever it a thing or no-thing-ness, it is always conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is].

Thus,

whatever is 'thingness' it is a thing conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge [FSK] within reality [all there is] related to thingness.

whatever is 'no-thingness' it is a "thing" conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge within reality [all there is] related to no-thingness.

You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK.

1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

If I were to make a claim a thing exists as real, I will rely on the authority of the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings where necessary.

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

If the scientific FSK conclude the Sun exists, it is a thing existing based on the scientific FSK which is the most credible fact at present.
In this case, there is 'some thing' as qualified.
Thus the existence of a thing is possible as qualified to the scientific FSK.
How can you insist there is 'no thing'.

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

Yes, I agree to the above.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

Meta-FSKs are not significant in this case.
Whatever is qualified as a thing from the scientific FSK can be translated to utility [subject avoiding abuses] for mankind which is the critical issue.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

Pass.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

Never, whatever derived from a FSK is by default conditional.

1. An FSK as an authority requires an FSK beyond that FSK which is not justified but simply believed.

2. "No-thing" is an absence of proof, absence of proof exists. The relativity of truth necessitates all truths as unproven relative to a different context, thus absence of proof is continuous (ie absolute).

3. "Thing in itself", as absolute, equates to "no-thing", as absolute, thus what is absolute about reality is an absence of thingness.

4. All FSKs must depend upon further FSKs if FSK is to be justified ("utility", as in a thing for a specific use, is an FSK). The paradox of this FSK relying upon another FSK is that the FSK becomes obscure.

5. "Whatever is derived from an FSK is conditional" is absolute as there is nothing to compare an FSK to as FSK is "conditions"; conditions relative to conditions makes condition self-referential and without contrast thus unconditional.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. My authority is being itself as the claim emerged from being, on what authority do you make your claims?

If I were to make a claim a thing exists as real, I will rely on the authority of the scientific FSK reinforced with philosophical reasonings where necessary.

2. A framework/system of knowledge is a thing thus a thing references a thing; thingness references itself therefore has no comparison but itself. Without comparison "thing" is indefinite thus results in "no-thing".

If the scientific FSK conclude the Sun exists, it is a thing existing based on the scientific FSK which is the most credible fact at present.
In this case, there is 'some thing' as qualified.
Thus the existence of a thing is possible as qualified to the scientific FSK.
How can you insist there is 'no thing'.

3. The totality of being exists without comparison thus is a thing in itself and is absolute. The thing in itself is without comparison thus is indefinite which furthermore makes it no-thing. In the totality both "thing in itself" and "no-thing" equate.

Yes, I agree to the above.

4. And FSK results in meta-FSKs thus the FSK references itself and becomes obscure.

Meta-FSKs are not significant in this case.
Whatever is qualified as a thing from the scientific FSK can be translated to utility [subject avoiding abuses] for mankind which is the critical issue.

5. Self-referencing is the repetition of any phenomena where all phenomena occur through perception and as such are extensions of the I. As extensions of the I this repetition is synonymous to self-referencing.

Pass.

6. "You just cannot state "thingness" becoming "no-thing" in any absolute sense without reference to any FSK."....Are you stating that an absolute can be derived from an FSK? If so you contradict yourself.

Never, whatever derived from a FSK is by default conditional.

1. An FSK as an authority requires an FSK beyond that FSK which is not justified but simply believed.

2. "No-thing" is an absence of proof, absence of proof exists. The relativity of truth necessitates all truths as unproven relative to a different context, thus absence of proof is continuous (ie absolute).

3. "Thing in itself", as absolute, equates to "no-thing", as absolute, thus what is absolute about reality is an absence of thingness.

4. All FSKs must depend upon further FSKs if FSK is to be justified ("utility", as in a thing for a specific use, is an FSK). The paradox of this FSK relying upon another FSK is that the FSK becomes obscure.

5. "Whatever is derived from an FSK is conditional" is absolute as there is nothing to compare an FSK to as FSK is "conditions"; conditions relative to conditions makes condition self-referential and without contrast thus unconditional.

Whatever the FSK or beyond a FSK, they ultimately fall back to humans beyond it.
Therefore a FSK or whatever FSK one can go far back, it is always conditional to humans.

The only thing you can claim is there is an absolute to humans, i.e. an independent absolutely absolute God who created humans, i.e. the first cause. But note my argument,

God is an Impossibility to be real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704