The Negation of the Self is the Actualization of the Self.

[Eodnhoj7]

Humans do not need absolute certainty to ensure optimal survival.

Are you certain about this?

I don't believe in absolute certainty.
I am however I believe in relative certainty based on available empirical evidence, empirically justified possibilities, rationality, critical thinking and philosophy-proper.

Note no humans can be absolutely certain the Sun will rise tomorrow.
Despite that humans has evolved and progress since 6 million years ago.
It is the same with all other existing empirical events and those that are empirically possible.

There is no need for an actualization of a transcendental self to ensure humanity evolved and progress efficiently and morally.


Rather what is sufficient is humans need knowledge that are empirically real, rational, morally guided and possible to facilitate the individual's survival optimally and therefrom the preservation of the human species.

Why is it sufficient considering there are factions with empiricism?

Duality is inevitable within the empirical world.
Despite that the human species is growing and not facing an immediate threat of extinction.
There is also a positive trend of secular morality, e.g. the legal abolishment of chattel slavery by all recognized nations plus many other trends of improvement based on secular views.

Duality a constant abstraction however and you blur the the senses with pure reason at that point. Empiricism may be defined by dualism but dualism is not limited to empiricism.

Actually the word slavery is subject to equivocation as it has many different meanings. Lower class jobs and people being exploited by various industries sucas as Wal-Mart, the education system, etc still can be argued as placing a dual low income debt structure around the individual effectively mirroring the slave structure. Also the increase of prostitution in first world countries relative to third world countries show an a shift in value systems toward relegating the individual as strictly a financial means.

Looking at not just the financial but chaotic state America and Europe are in one cannot place am effective argument around secular morality and government without taking a faith stance.


While empirical knowledge is never absolutely certain, it is effective enough to be used to prevent the human species from extinction to the extreme frontiers of enabling humans to possibility of deflecting a rogue meteorite from outer space heading in Earth's path and totally destroying it.

Empirical evidence of this, As the argument is rooted in abstractions of possibility?


First there are empirical evidences to support the above, so it is empirically possible.
There have been big meteors striking Earth and some with terrible catastrophe[s] to life on Earth.
These days we have large telescopes to look outward that can detect the presence of large meteorites and scientists can easily calculate their likely path to determine their likelyhood of hitting Earth.

Actually scientists admits to observing only a low margin of all possible asteroids that may hit. Memory says 4 percent of all asteroids are observed...but I may be really wrong.

Also the evidence shows that life continued after the meteor strikes, it just evolved.






Now what is the most effective use of establishing the ideology of the Absolute based on faith, i.e. not on reason nor proofs?
Can such an ideology and belief contribute to the overall well being of humankind and the possibility to deflect a rogue meteor coming towards Earth in say 500 years time?

Limit and no limit as universal axioms provide the foundation through the axioms of the point, line and circle being constants.

Axioms related to geometry are extracted from the empirical.
I am asking how is the belief in no-self and God contribute directly to the progress of humanity in the same manner as Science and other fields of knowledge can do.

So the empirical sets the premise for infinity and abstraction.

Because the issues science deals with reflect the moral problems of a civilization that presents the self as over others. Extreme selfishness is the foundation of evil considering the self is absent of definition.

God, was the foundational belief of the majority of scientists and represents structure, balance, order, peace, etc...regardless of religious state.

Science has not solve the question of morality without pointing to some form of religion.





Actually the ideology of the Absolute on the individual level is pure selfishness and for own personal interests at the subconscious level.
Is this an absolute statement?

As I had stated I do not believe in the absolutely absolute.
The above point can be inferred from empirical evidences of the behavior and reactions of believers toward criticism of their beliefs in the Absolute.
I have argued the basis of a believe in the Absolute, Oneness, and what you are claiming here are based on the impulses of an existential crisis pulsating subliminally.
At the extreme some one can kill you if you critique their beliefs in the Absolute.

No absolutely absolute....is an absolute statement.

You actually provide no argument about existential crisis except it is a subliminal impulse....Without giving empirical evidence or explaining why.

I am honestly having difficulting taking your emotionally fueled arguments and hatred seriously...you are coming off as a bigot.

Where the ideology of the Absolute [aka] is imputed into organized religions, there is some moral benefits but that has limitations and loads of negatives/cons to humanity.

Actually the absolute is premised in philosophical reasoning as well, along with mathematics, geometry and logic as the roots of empirical definition.

But note philosophical reasonings has its root in the empirical.
Note:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

Thus whatever is reducible to the empirical not the transcendental absolute.
The yearning and reifying of a transcendental absolute not based on proofs nor reason is due to terrible psychological impulses.

And the empirical is rooted in the abstract. Platonic solids, while reflected in empirical means are not limited in them.

Actually you cannot keep blaming the psychological impulse without blaming the physical world for it as according to you the impulses are premised within the brain hence premised in materiality,
But you claim only the senses can be true when the senses are made of matter themselves and subject to flux.

You claim there is a moral problem....but this may well be an empirical illusion.

After writing that paragraph I came to the realization of how absurd your argument is based upon its premised alone. To avoid confusion I will just read your next posts and provide a few sentence argument at the bottom, I frankly cannot take your lack of reason seriously.

The only rational answers to the emergence of the idea of an Absolute, Oneness, Unity, God, and the likes is because of the human brain/mind generating a defense mechanism [of various degrees] to soothe a terrible psychological existential crisis within the subconscious mind.

And where is the empirical evidence of this? Regardless, considering measurement is premised in unity and 1, at minimum, through the observation of variables as 1 or unity in themselves, all empiricism as a form of measurement is premised in this unity as materiality is the great unifier.

Here are the arguments and supporting research;

"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

This point is a fact not ad hominen.
The facts are proven from research findings that confirm there is a continuum to it from the mildest to the most unified.

And what research is this? And what about research that says religion is necessary? How do you measure one form of empiricism relative to another without moving to abstractions as a constant form of measurement?


see the above link to the thread I raised on the issue.
I agree religions at present is a critical necessity for the majority but that is to soothe the personal inherent unavoidable terrible psychological sufferings from an existential crisis.
Theistic religions are grounded on an illusion of the Absolute aka God.
While there are some positives from theistic religions, there are also terrible evil and violent acts from theistic religions.
This is why we need to expose the roots of religions based on an illusory Absolute and find alternative fool proof non-theistic self-development programs as replacements to deal with that inherent UNAVOIDABLE existential crisis in the future.

The most serious cases of depersonalization and its forms has enable some believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-believers and others.
What could be more personal than removing a person's dignity and right to live out of hate...cruelty and malice are not objective as objectively speaking cruelty and hate leads to an absence of structure when not kept in balance. True ruthlessness shows there is no point in being ruthless.

Note the critical element here is the terrible evil and violent acts theistic believers clinging the Absolute aka God are pounding on innocent non-believers merely because they do not believe in a God or the same God as them.
How can that be personal and selfish when the concern is extended to 2+ billion people being brainwashed by evil laden ideologies and 5+ billion being vulnerable to their evil acts.

Dealt with that thread in one mode or another. Secular morality, emphasized in communistic atheism is just as evil. It appears you are angry with the human condition and blaming religion for it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dealt with that thread in one mode or another.
Secular morality, emphasized in communistic atheism is just as evil. It appears you are angry with the human condition and blaming religion for it.

Actually your 'defense mechanism' is active as expressed in your response.
You are throwing sweeping statements without sound justification for it.
You have to justify why you think I may be angry with the human condition.

I am a very strong critique of religions especially the Abrahamic religions which has contributed terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity.
I have proven the evil and violent acts is directly attributable to Islam itself. In other cases the institutional factors of religions has provided the umbrella for some evil prone believer to abuse the system.

If you want to critique my views you have to provide counter arguments and not make baseless sweeping statements without critical thinking.

Here one example'

Duality is inevitable within the empirical world.
Despite that the human species is growing and not facing an immediate threat of extinction.
There is also a positive trend of secular morality, e.g. the legal abolishment of chattel slavery by all recognized nations plus many other trends of improvement based on secular views.

Duality a constant abstraction however and you blur the the senses with pure reason at that point. Empiricism may be defined by dualism but dualism is not limited to empiricism.

Actually the word slavery is subject to equivocation as it has many different meanings. Lower class jobs and people being exploited by various industries sucas as Wal-Mart, the education system, etc still can be argued as placing a dual low income debt structure around the individual effectively mirroring the slave structure. Also the increase of prostitution in first world countries relative to third world countries show an a shift in value systems toward relegating the individual as strictly a financial means.

Looking at not just the financial but chaotic state America and Europe are in one cannot place am effective argument around secular morality and government without taking a faith stance.

The above is an example of you being very superficial.
I understand there are many aspects of slavery.
That is why I specifically mentioned 'chattel slavery' where a human being is legally owned by another and can be traded in a slave market.
You overlooked this and countered me on slavery-in-general which is off my point.

It is the same with your OP and all the other points where you merely deal with the superficials.
You need to dig deeper and wider in any topics you discussed especially in a Philosophy Forum like this one.

[Eodnhoj7]

Dealt with that thread in one mode or another.
Secular morality, emphasized in communistic atheism is just as evil. It appears you are angry with the human condition and blaming religion for it.

Actually your 'defense mechanism' is active as expressed in your response.
You are throwing sweeping statements without sound justification for it.
You have to justify why you think I may be angry with the human condition.

I am a very strong critique of religions especially the Abrahamic religions which has contributed terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity.
I have proven the evil and violent acts is directly attributable to Islam itself. In other cases the institutional factors of religions has provided the umbrella for some evil prone believer to abuse the system.

If you want to critique my views you have to provide counter arguments and not make baseless sweeping statements without critical thinking.

Here one example'

Duality is inevitable within the empirical world.
Despite that the human species is growing and not facing an immediate threat of extinction.
There is also a positive trend of secular morality, e.g. the legal abolishment of chattel slavery by all recognized nations plus many other trends of improvement based on secular views.

Duality a constant abstraction however and you blur the the senses with pure reason at that point. Empiricism may be defined by dualism but dualism is not limited to empiricism.

Actually the word slavery is subject to equivocation as it has many different meanings. Lower class jobs and people being exploited by various industries sucas as Wal-Mart, the education system, etc still can be argued as placing a dual low income debt structure around the individual effectively mirroring the slave structure. Also the increase of prostitution in first world countries relative to third world countries show an a shift in value systems toward relegating the individual as strictly a financial means.

Looking at not just the financial but chaotic state America and Europe are in one cannot place am effective argument around secular morality and government without taking a faith stance.

The above is an example of you being very superficial.
I understand there are many aspects of slavery.
That is why I specifically mentioned 'chattel slavery' where a human being is legally owned by another and can be traded in a slave market.
You overlooked this and countered me on slavery-in-general which is off my point.

It is the same with your OP and all the other points where you merely deal with the superficials.
You need to dig deeper and wider in any topics you discussed especially in a Philosophy Forum like this one.

To be honest I read the first few sentences of your post, even though it is relatively short...there are a billion angry critics out there all thinking there opinions matter.

All with extensive arguments on how the world should work according to there own subjective premises.

If you think you are going to change the world through a forum...you are fucked because all those people and perspective you are arguing against are doing the same thing and essentially you are no different.

You have a mission to bring justice through your anger...so do a billion other people...the world exists as it is. If you want to change the world first change yourself. Unity is more difficult and noble than division.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dealt with that thread in one mode or another.
Secular morality, emphasized in communistic atheism is just as evil. It appears you are angry with the human condition and blaming religion for it.

Actually your 'defense mechanism' is active as expressed in your response.
You are throwing sweeping statements without sound justification for it.
You have to justify why you think I may be angry with the human condition.

I am a very strong critique of religions especially the Abrahamic religions which has contributed terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity.
I have proven the evil and violent acts is directly attributable to Islam itself. In other cases the institutional factors of religions has provided the umbrella for some evil prone believer to abuse the system.

If you want to critique my views you have to provide counter arguments and not make baseless sweeping statements without critical thinking.

Here one example'

Duality is inevitable within the empirical world.
Despite that the human species is growing and not facing an immediate threat of extinction.
There is also a positive trend of secular morality, e.g. the legal abolishment of chattel slavery by all recognized nations plus many other trends of improvement based on secular views.

The above is an example of you being very superficial.
I understand there are many aspects of slavery.
That is why I specifically mentioned 'chattel slavery' where a human being is legally owned by another and can be traded in a slave market.
You overlooked this and countered me on slavery-in-general which is off my point.

It is the same with your OP and all the other points where you merely deal with the superficials.
You need to dig deeper and wider in any topics you discussed especially in a Philosophy Forum like this one.

To be honest I read the first few sentences of your post, even though it is relatively short...there are a billion angry critics out there all thinking there opinions matter.

All with extensive arguments on how the world should work according to there own subjective premises.

If you think you are going to change the world through a forum...you are fucked because all those people and perspective you are arguing against are doing the same thing and essentially you are no different.

You have a mission to bring justice through your anger...so do a billion other people...the world exists as it is. If you want to change the world first change yourself. Unity is more difficult and noble than division.

Where did I state or even imply I can change the world through a forum like this.
It is a fact those who are active in such a forum is VERY low perhaps less than 50 in day.
There is much less people reading and responding to a certain thread.
How can I expect what I posted in such a confined limited space will have any significant influence to the world.
If I have such an intention I would do that in Facebook, Twitter, Youtube with the hope it will go viral or write a book.

I participate in this forum to express my philosophical views and to keep my ideas afresh. I am not too primarily concern if there are responses or not.

Why has my views to have anything to do with anger?
My views are an empathic and compassionate reaction out of a concern for humanity. It is a contribution like a donation to charity which is not resulting from anger.

Unity is more difficult and noble than division.

You agree to Unity with the 'devil'?

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually your 'defense mechanism' is active as expressed in your response.
You are throwing sweeping statements without sound justification for it.
You have to justify why you think I may be angry with the human condition.

I am a very strong critique of religions especially the Abrahamic religions which has contributed terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity.
I have proven the evil and violent acts is directly attributable to Islam itself. In other cases the institutional factors of religions has provided the umbrella for some evil prone believer to abuse the system.

If you want to critique my views you have to provide counter arguments and not make baseless sweeping statements without critical thinking.

Here one example'





The above is an example of you being very superficial.
I understand there are many aspects of slavery.
That is why I specifically mentioned 'chattel slavery' where a human being is legally owned by another and can be traded in a slave market.
You overlooked this and countered me on slavery-in-general which is off my point.

It is the same with your OP and all the other points where you merely deal with the superficials.
You need to dig deeper and wider in any topics you discussed especially in a Philosophy Forum like this one.

To be honest I read the first few sentences of your post, even though it is relatively short...there are a billion angry critics out there all thinking there opinions matter.

All with extensive arguments on how the world should work according to there own subjective premises.

If you think you are going to change the world through a forum...you are fucked because all those people and perspective you are arguing against are doing the same thing and essentially you are no different.

You have a mission to bring justice through your anger...so do a billion other people...the world exists as it is. If you want to change the world first change yourself. Unity is more difficult and noble than division.

Where did I state or even imply I can change the world through a forum like this.
It is a fact those who are active in such a forum is VERY low perhaps less than 50 in day.
There is much less people reading and responding to a certain thread.
How can I expect what I posted in such a confined limited space will have any significant influence to the world.
If I have such an intention I would do that in Facebook, Twitter, Youtube with the hope it will go viral or write a book.

I participate in this forum to express my philosophical views and to keep my ideas afresh. I am not too primarily concern if there are responses or not.

Why has my views to have anything to do with anger?
My views are an empathic and compassionate reaction out of a concern for humanity. It is a contribution like a donation to charity which is not resulting from anger.

Unity is more difficult and noble than division.

You agree to Unity with the 'devil'?

Red herring... compassion is relativistic and demands a form of simultaneous ruthlessness directed elsewhere. To save one mindset is to kill another with the boundary line of judgement often time determined through an unknown subjective nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why has my views to have anything to do with anger?
My views are an empathic and compassionate reaction out of a concern for humanity. It is a contribution like a donation to charity which is not resulting from anger.

Unity is more difficult and noble than division.

You agree to Unity with the 'devil'?

Red herring... compassion is relativistic and demands a form of simultaneous ruthlessness directed elsewhere. To save one mindset is to kill another with the boundary line of judgement often time determined through an unknown subjective nature.

Your views is from a one-tracked mind.

Note my point here which is applicable to compassion,
viewtopic.php?p=378889#p378889

Even if someone has the propensity for empathy, it can be negative if empathy is directed blindly. Note this from Aristotle in relation to the emotion of anger.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -
  that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  -Aristotle

Substitute 'become angry' with 'be empathic' or compassion.

In this sense a person must cultivate the necessary impulse control to modulate one's compassionate impulses as in the above quote.
Compassionate may be a potentially good trait but its default is not net-positive in all occasions and time. There are people who exercise their compassion blindly and make stupid actions that results in more harm than good.

[Eodnhoj7]

Why has my views to have anything to do with anger?
My views are an empathic and compassionate reaction out of a concern for humanity. It is a contribution like a donation to charity which is not resulting from anger.


You agree to Unity with the 'devil'?

Red herring... compassion is relativistic and demands a form of simultaneous ruthlessness directed elsewhere. To save one mindset is to kill another with the boundary line of judgement often time determined through an unknown subjective nature.

Your views is from a one-tracked mind.

Note my point here which is applicable to compassion,
viewtopic.php?p=378889#p378889

Even if someone has the propensity for empathy, it can be negative if empathy is directed blindly. Note this from Aristotle in relation to the emotion of anger.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -
  that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  -Aristotle

Substitute 'become angry' with 'be empathic' or compassion.

In this sense a person must cultivate the necessary impulse control to modulate one's compassionate impulses as in the above quote.
Compassionate may be a potentially good trait but its default is not net-positive in all occasions and time. There are people who exercise their compassion blindly and make stupid actions that results in more harm than good.

One exists in many forms as all qualities are the composition of many unity as with qualities being a unity in itself. The same applies for all number being an extension of 1. Having a 1 track mind effectively gives infinite possibilities where all existence, relativistivally speaking, has some degree of good in it.

All compassion towards one group of people leads to a ruthlessness towards others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Red herring... compassion is relativistic and demands a form of simultaneous ruthlessness directed elsewhere. To save one mindset is to kill another with the boundary line of judgement often time determined through an unknown subjective nature.

Your views is from a one-tracked mind.

Note my point here which is applicable to compassion,
viewtopic.php?p=378889#p378889

Even if someone has the propensity for empathy, it can be negative if empathy is directed blindly. Note this from Aristotle in relation to the emotion of anger.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -
  that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  -Aristotle

Substitute 'become angry' with 'be empathic' or compassion.

In this sense a person must cultivate the necessary impulse control to modulate one's compassionate impulses as in the above quote.
Compassionate may be a potentially good trait but its default is not net-positive in all occasions and time. There are people who exercise their compassion blindly and make stupid actions that results in more harm than good.

One exists in many forms as all qualities are the composition of many unity as with qualities being a unity in itself. The same applies for all number being an extension of 1. Having a 1 track mind effectively gives infinite possibilities where all existence, relativistivally speaking, has some degree of good in it.

"One-track mind" is a common term with a common meaning. i.e.

• A mind limited to only one line of thought or action, as in All you think about is sex—you have a one-track mind.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/one-track-mind

All compassion towards one group of people leads to a ruthlessness towards others.

This is again another one-track-mind thinking, note I stated the above i.e. compassion need to be modulated effectively;

• with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -

I anticipate you will give another 'one-track mind' response.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your views is from a one-tracked mind.

Note my point here which is applicable to compassion,
viewtopic.php?p=378889#p378889

Even if someone has the propensity for empathy, it can be negative if empathy is directed blindly. Note this from Aristotle in relation to the emotion of anger.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -
  that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  -Aristotle

Substitute 'become angry' with 'be empathic' or compassion.

In this sense a person must cultivate the necessary impulse control to modulate one's compassionate impulses as in the above quote.
Compassionate may be a potentially good trait but its default is not net-positive in all occasions and time. There are people who exercise their compassion blindly and make stupid actions that results in more harm than good.

One exists in many forms as all qualities are the composition of many unity as with qualities being a unity in itself. The same applies for all number being an extension of 1. Having a 1 track mind effectively gives infinite possibilities where all existence, relativistivally speaking, has some degree of good in it.

"One-track mind" is a common term with a common meaning. i.e.

• A mind limited to only one line of thought or action, as in All you think about is sex—you have a one-track mind.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/one-track-mind

All compassion towards one group of people leads to a ruthlessness towards others.

This is again another one-track-mind thinking, note I stated the above i.e. compassion need to be modulated effectively;

• with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -

I anticipate you will give another 'one-track mind' response.

Not really, what is your point considering you are looking for a means to "unify" the world under one perspective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is again another one-track-mind thinking, note I stated the above i.e. compassion need to be modulated effectively;

• with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -

I anticipate you will give another 'one-track mind' response.

Not really, what is your point considering you are looking for a means to "unify" the world under one perspective?

Nope, I did not insist on that especially if you think my point it is ideological. But note the point here is objective fact.
Note the principle of Substance and Forms or Substance over Forms.
The critical thing is to acknowledge the fact of the infinite diversity of forms but at the same time understand the substance underlying all forms.
It is a fact, the physical world is diversified but all are reducible to atoms, electrons, quarks, etc.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is again another one-track-mind thinking, note I stated the above i.e. compassion need to be modulated effectively;

• with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way -

I anticipate you will give another 'one-track mind' response.

Not really, what is your point considering you are looking for a means to "unify" the world under one perspective?

Nope, I did not insist on that especially if you think my point it is ideological. But note the point here is objective fact.
Note the principle of Substance and Forms or Substance over Forms.
The critical thing is to acknowledge the fact of the infinite diversity of forms but at the same time understand the substance underlying all forms.
It is a fact, the physical world is diversified but all are reducible to atoms, electrons, quarks, etc.

The substance lying all forms, if substance can be used as it is poor in meaning, is directed movement where one movement relative to another allows a form of structure through inherent "ratios" or "proportions". This nature of directed movement is inseperable from form as all form is infinite movement. To argue that everything stems from a premise of electrons, atoms, quarks, etc. would required these "substances" to loop back upon themselves through the very act of observation considering we are made of such substances and we are left with these phenomenon existing because of "form".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not really, what is your point considering you are looking for a means to "unify" the world under one perspective?

Nope, I did not insist on that especially if you think my point it is ideological. But note the point here is objective fact.
Note the principle of Substance and Forms or Substance over Forms.
The critical thing is to acknowledge the fact of the infinite diversity of forms but at the same time understand the substance underlying all forms.
It is a fact, the physical world is diversified but all are reducible to atoms, electrons, quarks, etc.

The substance lying all forms, if substance can be used as it is poor in meaning, is directed movement where one movement relative to another allows a form of structure through inherent "ratios" or "proportions". This nature of directed movement is inseperable from form as all form is infinite movement. To argue that everything stems from a premise of electrons, atoms, quarks, etc. would required these "substances" to loop back upon themselves through the very act of observation considering we are made of such substances and we are left with these phenomenon existing because of "form".

You cannot deny quarks [not necessary the ultimate] are the fundamental 'substance' over all physical forms.

Nope, you are rhetorical here.
The substances do not loop back because 'we' are comprised of those substance.

What we have is there is an emergent of an empirical-self that reflect upon those substances.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope, I did not insist on that especially if you think my point it is ideological. But note the point here is objective fact.
Note the principle of Substance and Forms or Substance over Forms.
The critical thing is to acknowledge the fact of the infinite diversity of forms but at the same time understand the substance underlying all forms.
It is a fact, the physical world is diversified but all are reducible to atoms, electrons, quarks, etc.

The substance lying all forms, if substance can be used as it is poor in meaning, is directed movement where one movement relative to another allows a form of structure through inherent "ratios" or "proportions". This nature of directed movement is inseperable from form as all form is infinite movement. To argue that everything stems from a premise of electrons, atoms, quarks, etc. would required these "substances" to loop back upon themselves through the very act of observation considering we are made of such substances and we are left with these phenomenon existing because of "form".

You cannot deny quarks [not necessary the ultimate] are the fundamental 'substance' over all physical forms.

Nope, you are rhetorical here.
The substances do not loop back because 'we' are comprised of those substance.

What we have is there is an emergent of an empirical-self that reflect upon those substances.

Can one deny quarks? No. Can they deny quarks are the sole foundation? Considering it is a probabilistic argument, it would not be wise to say they are the sole foundation.

Actually it is not a question of rhetoric, if we are composed of quarks and we are observing quarks then by default the quarks are looping back on themselves. Physics does not like this because they believe it negates progress (when it really doesn't if the loop expands or contracts) and it necessitates universal forms not limited to physics alone.

The looping nature of empirical phenomenon leads to inherent consistency in forms where the question comes: which came first form or matter? Under relativity we are left with the necessity form is not limited to matter but emliricists are angered by an pure reason to being because it gives a sense of incompletion to there beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The substance lying all forms, if substance can be used as it is poor in meaning, is directed movement where one movement relative to another allows a form of structure through inherent "ratios" or "proportions". This nature of directed movement is inseperable from form as all form is infinite movement. To argue that everything stems from a premise of electrons, atoms, quarks, etc. would required these "substances" to loop back upon themselves through the very act of observation considering we are made of such substances and we are left with these phenomenon existing because of "form".

You cannot deny quarks [not necessary the ultimate] are the fundamental 'substance' over all physical forms.

Nope, you are rhetorical here.
The substances do not loop back because 'we' are comprised of those substance.

What we have is there is an emergent of an empirical-self that reflect upon those substances.

Can one deny quarks? No. Can they deny quarks are the sole foundation? Considering it is a probabilistic argument, it would not be wise to say they are the sole foundation.

I am not implying quarks are the sole foundation.
There is no absolute sole foundation.

Actually it is not a question of rhetoric, if we are composed of quarks and we are observing quarks then by default the quarks are looping back on themselves. Physics does not like this because they believe it negates progress (when it really doesn't if the loop expands or contracts) and it necessitates universal forms not limited to physics alone.

The looping nature of empirical phenomenon leads to inherent consistency in forms where the question comes: which came first form or matter? Under relativity we are left with the necessity form is not limited to matter but emliricists are angered by an pure reason to being because it gives a sense of incompletion to there beliefs.

The looping is not in a circle but a spiral like the Yin-Yang complementarity and hermeneutics.
Note the Buddhist's "Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form."

[Eodnhoj7]

You cannot deny quarks [not necessary the ultimate] are the fundamental 'substance' over all physical forms.

Nope, you are rhetorical here.
The substances do not loop back because 'we' are comprised of those substance.

What we have is there is an emergent of an empirical-self that reflect upon those substances.

Can one deny quarks? No. Can they deny quarks are the sole foundation? Considering it is a probabilistic argument, it would not be wise to say they are the sole foundation.

I am not implying quarks are the sole foundation.
There is no absolute sole foundation.

Actually it is not a question of rhetoric, if we are composed of quarks and we are observing quarks then by default the quarks are looping back on themselves. Physics does not like this because they believe it negates progress (when it really doesn't if the loop expands or contracts) and it necessitates universal forms not limited to physics alone.

The looping nature of empirical phenomenon leads to inherent consistency in forms where the question comes: which came first form or matter? Under relativity we are left with the necessity form is not limited to matter but emliricists are angered by an pure reason to being because it gives a sense of incompletion to there beliefs.

The looping is not in a circle but a spiral like the Yin-Yang complementarity and hermeneutics.
Note the Buddhist's "Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form."

If there is no absolute then:
1) There is no absolute definition of evil, as you argue.
2) "No absolute" comtradicts itself as it must be an absolute statement if it is to be truth. If it negates itself into a further definitive statement, and so on and so forth, the continuum of the relativistic definitions is an absolute.
3) To negate a positive (absolute) requires a positive to exist.

A) A spiral still necessitates a linear movement from a point 0 towards a point 0, and in these respects goes back to the "lines as circle" thread. This is considering the loop, if observed from the side, eventually results in a line as a quantum frequency.

B) The premise of the spiral movement (the origin curve) moves in a circular manner through the foundation point. The same occurs with the interior point. The spiral is the circularity of points in points. This will have to be explained further.

C) If viewing the spiral amidst any of specified number of cycles, regardless of one's place in the continuum, the spiral maintains the same proportionality and a spiral of "x" length in position "a" will be the same if "x" length in position "b,c,d," or any other position.

D) THE arguments can be expanded further but provide foundations for constants.

This looping cycle is premised in circularity.





The point, line and circle exist through eachother as 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 and are inseparable. They are the foundations for all reason and consciousness and reflect through the various belief systems that relegate divinity as triadic and one. (I will have to post sources for this argument)