Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pm
The majority of this was ad hominems.
The examples you gave where assumptions.
I can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".
1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.
For example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.
But that is NOT 'what it is'. The car, from your perspective, is only ASSUMED to be running well. From your perspective, you, obviously, do not know if the car is running well. As you will obviously have to admit. So, it is NOT 'what it is'. You only assume or think it is 'what it is'.
And if I hear a rumbling, I also assume something is wrong. Both functions, good and bad, of the car are determined by the assumption of certain definitions of what a good and bad running car are.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pmThe problem occurs in the respect that even if I assume the car is running well, it is still based upon a specific continuum of definitions (ie no scratches, good tires, new oil, etc.) that are taken for what is.
Being 'taken for what is', obviously does not mean that it is
'what is'.
Still an assumption. If the car is good or bad based upon definitions. The most we can observe is the connection of assumptions.
You will NEVER know
what IS, because you choose to assume every thing.
Choice, is an assumption. The continual connection and seperation of assumption observes choice is not always applicable under certain contexts. The linear projection of one assumption to another is inevitable. Same with the cycling. Same with each assumption as grounded in a point of awareness.
These forms are inevitable, thus assumption is inseperable from form.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pm So even with a continuum of definitions these definitions are always assumed. However if I never assumed anything, and seek further definition, it is still requiring the definitions to be assumed.
This is obviously false. "it" does NOT
require the definitions to be assumed. You only CHOOSE the definitions to be assumed, as I have already pointed out to you.
False. X is composed of y requires y to be assumed. Y is composed of a requires Z to be assumed....etc. X is assumed because Z is assumed. What we observe is a connection of x,y,a but this is an assumption.
Assumption and form are inseperable and the form "just is".
Making assumptions is a CHOOSE you make. You CHOOSE to make assumptions because if you did not, then that would refute your own beliefs, and coincidentally also your own assumptions, which obviously can be completely and utterly WRONG.
For you to do absolutely any thing other than to ASSUME absolutely every thing, then would refute your own distorted beliefs and assumptions.
You are assuming free will alone.
I am NOT assuming free will alone at all. "Free will alone" NEVER even entered this head before your reply.
To me, this assuming absolutely EVERY thing, which you always do, is WHY you are just about always WRONG here.
To me, if you stopped making assumptions, which can very easily be done, then you would obviously stop being so wrong so often.
Correct me if I am wrong here. 1. You assume that you are trying to formulate an argument, which assumly concludes that you.assume absolutely EVERY thing.
Now, if this correct, then please understand that I agree wholeheartedly with you that absolutely EVERY you say is just an assumption, which obviously can be false and wrong. Do you understand that I AGREE with you?
But if that number 1. is not correct, then what is the that that you do not assume?
I have already provided an example of 'What is not assumed', and why you have to assume this is absolutely true and correct. If you assume this is wrong then point out the exact example I provide for 'What is not assumed'.
Also, assuming "Trillema is unavoidable" is just another one of your assumptions, which obviously could be completely WRONG. Just because you BELIEVE to be true does not make it so. And, you have absolutely no way of proving it true or not false, so why even mention it here?