There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=470284 time=1599706580 user_id=16237]
But they ALL do have the capacity, within them. This capacity has just been shrunk, or lost, through incorrect teachings, and learning, during their past experiences.
[/quote]

>>You just said 'you're wrong,

>WHEN and WHERE did I, supposedly, say; "I am wrong"?

You contradicted yourself. You said everyone has it and then you said some have lost it.

>But what happens if "another" is just expressing an understanding of what is ACTUALLY True, but which is just not related to 'YOUR' contention, which is NOT actually True, anyway?

There is only one reality despite there being infinite possible perspectives of it. Any true stories actually agree, even if they don't seem to. The truth cannot contradict itself. My story is just one version, which happens to be the most complete version.

>Just wondering, from your perspective, whose fault is it if YOUR contention is NOT clearly and properly understood?

It's not a fault because there's no necessary end which is being targeted.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:53 pm

An example of the one and many is a single line composed of multiple lines. One line exists as repeated yet this repetition necessitates a multiplicity.

The summation of everything necessitates the one existing through the many much in the same manner the summation of all numbers necessitating multiple ones as existing through many numbers composed of multiple ones.
The example that there is only One and nothing else is thee Universe, Itself.

You can provide MANY examples of other things. But, by definition, there can EVER ONLY BE One Universe.
One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space.
How could one universe be, logically and empirically, composed of multiple universes?

If a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space, then this does NOT mean that this classification of a grouping of matter and space includes the matter and space of ANOTHER universe. For if it was this way, then this would just be illogical, absurd, AND ridiculous.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am The problem is one of classification.
LOL Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

Is One human being composed of multiple human beings, also?

Is One boat composed of multiple boats, as well?

Also, there is NO problem at all of classification. If there is ANY problem at all, then it is the 'problem' that you are causing and creating by you attempts at WRONG classifying, in order to fit in with and suit your ALREADY held BELIEFS.

The classification of 'A Universe' MEANS that there can EVER only be thee One and only Universe.

You, human beings, can 'try to' reclassify things, or 'try to' redefine things, to suit, and fit in, with your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but all you are doing is confusing, complicating, and making hard what is essentially EXTREMELY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am The one exists through the many and the many is an approximation of the one considering the one cannot be known in its totality.
You can try as MANY ways as you like to "justify" your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but that does NOT work.

By the way, the One is ALREADY KNOWN in Its Totality.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am We observe the one through the many thus the many is a facet of the one. This would be no different than seeing one line as composed of multiple lines, the one line is strictly many lines grouped together.

The one and the many are inseperable. The universe is both one and many.
I have ALREADY said that thee Universe is both One and composes of many. You, however, are just incapable, at the moment, to SEE and UNDERSTAND HOW thee Universe, Itself, does ACTUALLY exist independent of anything else.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:47 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:56 am But they ALL do have the capacity, within them. This capacity has just been shrunk, or lost, through incorrect teachings, and learning, during their past experiences.
>>You just said 'you're wrong,
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:47 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:56 am>WHEN and WHERE did I, supposedly, say; "I am wrong"?
You contradicted yourself. You said everyone has it and then you said some have lost it.
But I did NOT contradict "my" 'self'.

What I said is correct; EVERY human being has the capacity to recognize either truth or someone who recognizes truth, but EVERY adult human being has lost this capacity, because of and during their past experiences. Just like an engine has the capacity, or potential, for full power, but they all lose this capacity for full power over time, through being mistreated and not being looked after properly and correctly, during their past experiences. Just like human beings lose their capacity, or full potential, through mistreatment and not being looked after, properly and correctly, during their past experiences. Although this capacity, or full potential, remains there, within, just waiting to be tapped into, and unleashed, it gets shrunk and/or lost to the one who it is within.
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:47 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:56 am>But what happens if "another" is just expressing an understanding of what is ACTUALLY True, but which is just not related to 'YOUR' contention, which is NOT actually True, anyway?
There is only one reality despite there being infinite possible perspectives of it. Any true stories actually agree, even if they don't seem to.
But it is NOT necessarily true that true stories actually agree. For example, actual 'true stories' about what each observer sees, might not actually agree.
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:47 am The truth cannot contradict itself.
I agree.
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:47 am My story is just one version, which happens to be the most complete version.
Lol, but HOW do you KNOW this?

Have you READ or LISTENED to EVERY other version?

Also, you did NOT answer the actual OPEN, CLARIFYING question that I asked, and posed to you. Which was; What happens if "another" expresses an understanding of what is ACTUALLY True, but which is NOT related to YOUR contention, which is actually NOT true?
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:47 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:56 am>Just wondering, from your perspective, whose fault is it if YOUR contention is NOT clearly and properly understood?
It's not a fault because there's no necessary end which is being targeted.
If there is NO 'necessary end' that your contention is to be clearly and properly understood, then there is absolutely NO necessity at all for you to even 'try to' explain your contentions here, correct?
Advocate
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Advocate »

>One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space. The problem is one of classification.

The definition of universe is all that exists. It's completely disingenuous to add entire layers of reality to the universe with literally no evidence, logical or empirical. Any contention that cannot (even in theory) be tested is in every sense indistinguishable from fiction.
Advocate
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Advocate »

>>You contradicted yourself. You said everyone has it and then you said some have lost it.[/quote]

>But I did NOT contradict "my" 'self'.

>What I said is correct; EVERY human being has the capacity to recognize either truth or someone who recognizes truth, but EVERY adult human being has lost this capacity,

... yeah, that's contradicting yourself. I speak common English, not Ageish.

>But it is NOT necessarily true that true stories actually agree. For example, actual 'true stories' about what each observer sees, might not actually agree.

They do if they're true. You're failing to account for perspective here, which is one of the three contingencies that Must be accounted for in non-empirical matters.

>I agree.

Well stop it!

>Lol, but HOW do you KNOW this?

>Have you READ or LISTENED to EVERY other version?

I know my version is true by logical necessity. I presume since i've found many different versions of different parts of it phrased in different ways that the entire thing might have been done that way as well, or more to the point, that Any story that doesn't contradict the truth is also true, albeit from a different perspective.

>Also, you did NOT answer the actual OPEN, CLARIFYING question that I asked, and posed to you. Which was; [b][u]What happens if "another" expresses an understanding of what is ACTUALLY True, but which is NOT related to YOUR contention, which is actually NOT true?[/u][/b]

That has been done. In the Prime Metaphor I've undertaken to integrate the philosopers I've found who have a discernably similar/compatible understanding. That should give you some ideas of why i don't pursue integrating all the other details you constantly seem to want. That's only the core of philosophy and i've already got 6 versions. There had been an entire books written by some philosoper somewhere about every nuance of every major philosophical question. TPM's strength is in the integration of them. Completeness in that senss less desirable and less possible than it seems. It's also why there's the caveat about time permitting. After the core of the story is nice and pretty, Then it's time to start filling in additional clarification. Those aren't gaps, they're avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

>If there is NO 'necessary end' that your contention is to be clearly and properly understood, then there is absolutely NO necessity at all for you to even 'try to' explain your contentions here, correct?
[/quote]

It's necessary for me to disseminate The Truth because i understand it's worth. It's necessary for humanity because it's the answer to all it's problems. These aren't moral proscriptions. IF someone values The Truth, THEN they should try to understand it, wherever it shows up, in whatever form, so long as it's relevant toward their goals.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6299
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:30 am

The example that there is only One and nothing else is thee Universe, Itself.

You can provide MANY examples of other things. But, by definition, there can EVER ONLY BE One Universe.
One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space.
How could one universe be, logically and empirically, composed of multiple universes?

If a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space, then this does NOT mean that this classification of a grouping of matter and space includes the matter and space of ANOTHER universe. For if it was this way, then this would just be illogical, absurd, AND ridiculous.

The same manner in which one line is composed of multiple lines.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am The problem is one of classification.
LOL Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

Is One human being composed of multiple human beings, also?

One person is composed of multiple identities given they socialize with multiple different types of people.


Is One boat composed of multiple boats, as well?

The boat resting at a dock is not the same as one sailing through the water. Dually the same boat as having one sail then having the same sail replaced by another is not the same boat.

Also, there is NO problem at all of classification. If there is ANY problem at all, then it is the 'problem' that you are causing and creating by you attempts at WRONG classifying, in order to fit in with and suit your ALREADY held BELIEFS.

The classification of 'A Universe' MEANS that there can EVER only be thee One and only Universe.

"A" implies one amidst many. There is "a" dog and this dog is one among many.

You, human beings, can 'try to' reclassify things, or 'try to' redefine things, to suit, and fit in, with your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but all you are doing is confusing, complicating, and making hard what is essentially EXTREMELY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

False, the classifications are by default a part of the universe.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am The one exists through the many and the many is an approximation of the one considering the one cannot be known in its totality.
You can try as MANY ways as you like to "justify" your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but that does NOT work.

By the way, the One is ALREADY KNOWN in Its Totality.

If the one is known in its totality then you would know all future events before they would happen. You would known tommorows lottery ticket numbers.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am We observe the one through the many thus the many is a facet of the one. This would be no different than seeing one line as composed of multiple lines, the one line is strictly many lines grouped together.

The one and the many are inseperable. The universe is both one and many.
I have ALREADY said that thee Universe is both One and composes of many. You, however, are just incapable, at the moment, to SEE and UNDERSTAND HOW thee Universe, Itself, does ACTUALLY exist independent of anything else.

It does not exist as independent of its many fractal parts. These fractal parts are all variations of the one thus different from the one. For example the number 2 is a recursion of one. Two is both a distinct number in itself and a variation of one as one number. In the number line progressing from one to two one and many number lines occur. One number line as the summation of all numbers and many numbers lines as each number line is distinct as a reflection of the singular number line which is distinct. The individual lines, ie multiple lines, reflect the same nature of the single number line, ie act as individual lines, given they are extensions of the one line and thus embody its properties.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6299
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:43 pm >One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space. The problem is one of classification.

The definition of universe is all that exists. It's completely disingenuous to add entire layers of reality to the universe with literally no evidence, logical or empirical. Any contention that cannot (even in theory) be tested is in every sense indistinguishable from fiction.
"All that exists" necessitates "all" as contrasting to Nothingness, yet there is no Nothingness as only being exists. Nothing is a statement of relation between parts where Nothingness is the absence of one thing relative to another. An empty cup for example observes the absence of that which fills the cup leaving only the cup. Thus "all" in contrast to Nothingness is "all" in contrast to some other being which exists as distinct with this distinction being the point of change from one phenomenon into another. "All" is the point of distinction between one set of being, as distinct, and another set of being, as distinct. "All" effectively leads to some other being as all is a point of change from one set of being to another thus leaving multiple "alls".

Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.


The ability to test, as defining what is real, is falsifiable given the test is a mimicking of natural variables. In mimicking one set of variables a series of variables are left out given the mimicking is an approximation of the natural set of variables. There is no true test which contains all variables thus testing is nothing other than a recursion of natural variables being repeated in a new light thus causing a fundamental difference between what is being tested and the test in itself. The test is a variation of what is being test and as a variation is distinct thus different from what is being tested. In testing a phenomenon what is being observed is the test and not the natural environment in itself.
Advocate
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=470427 time=1599757808 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=470366 time=1599741813 user_id=15238]
>One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space. The problem is one of classification.

The definition of universe is all that exists. It's completely disingenuous to add entire layers of reality to the universe with literally no evidence, logical or empirical. Any contention that cannot (even in theory) be tested is in every sense indistinguishable from fiction.
[/quote]

"All that exists" necessitates "all" as contrasting to Nothingness, yet there is no Nothingness as only being exists. Nothing is a statement of relation between parts where Nothingness is the absence of one thing relative to another. An empty cup for example observes the absence of that which fills the cup leaving only the cup. Thus "all" in contrast to Nothingness is "all" in contrast to some other being which exists as distinct with this distinction being the point of change from one phenomenon into another. "All" is the point of distinction between one set of being, as distinct, and another set of being, as distinct. "All" effectively leads to some other being as all is a point of change from one set of being to another thus leaving multiple "alls".

Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.


The ability to test, as defining what is real, is falsifiable given the test is a mimicking of natural variables. In mimicking one set of variables a series of variables are left out given the mimicking is an approximation of the natural set of variables. There is no true test which contains all variables thus testing is nothing other than a recursion of natural variables being repeated in a new light thus causing a fundamental difference between what is being tested and the test in itself. The test is a variation of what is being test and as a variation is distinct thus different from what is being tested. In testing a phenomenon what is being observed is the test and not the natural environment in itself.
[/quote]

The validity of all forms of evidence rests on replication. So long as it keeps happening, it's real. If the same input produces the same output, you've found justifiable belief - knowledge.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6299
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:10 pm
Advocate wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:43 pm >One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space. The problem is one of classification.

The definition of universe is all that exists. It's completely disingenuous to add entire layers of reality to the universe with literally no evidence, logical or empirical. Any contention that cannot (even in theory) be tested is in every sense indistinguishable from fiction.
"All that exists" necessitates "all" as contrasting to Nothingness, yet there is no Nothingness as only being exists. Nothing is a statement of relation between parts where Nothingness is the absence of one thing relative to another. An empty cup for example observes the absence of that which fills the cup leaving only the cup. Thus "all" in contrast to Nothingness is "all" in contrast to some other being which exists as distinct with this distinction being the point of change from one phenomenon into another. "All" is the point of distinction between one set of being, as distinct, and another set of being, as distinct. "All" effectively leads to some other being as all is a point of change from one set of being to another thus leaving multiple "alls".

Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet this reality of the test must first be established. The test must be real to test what is real, but what is real is only real if tested. A regressive spiral occurs where the test must be real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real, but in itself cannot be test thus cannot be real.


The ability to test, as defining what is real, is falsifiable given the test is a mimicking of natural variables. In mimicking one set of variables a series of variables are left out given the mimicking is an approximation of the natural set of variables. There is no true test which contains all variables thus testing is nothing other than a recursion of natural variables being repeated in a new light thus causing a fundamental difference between what is being tested and the test in itself. The test is a variation of what is being test and as a variation is distinct thus different from what is being tested. In testing a phenomenon what is being observed is the test and not the natural environment in itself.
The validity of all forms of evidence rests on replication. So long as it keeps happening, it's real. If the same input produces the same output, you've found justifiable belief - knowledge.
The nature of replication however exists beyond testing considering the nature of replication itself, as a phenomenon is first required for testing to occur. Replication is a universal phenomenon and exists as beyond the test itself. The test is the replication of some, not all, variables found in nature thus what is observed within the act of testing itself is the parameters applied.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am

One universe is composed of multiple universes considering a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space.
How could one universe be, logically and empirically, composed of multiple universes?

If a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space, then this does NOT mean that this classification of a grouping of matter and space includes the matter and space of ANOTHER universe. For if it was this way, then this would just be illogical, absurd, AND ridiculous.

The same manner in which one line is composed of multiple lines.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am The problem is one of classification.
LOL Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

Is One human being composed of multiple human beings, also?

One person is composed of multiple identities given they socialize with multiple different types of people.

A VERY OBVIOUS twisted distortion on my clarifying question.

I asked about a 'human being'. You, however, responded with the words 'person' AND 'identities'.

Is One 'person' composed of multiple 'persons', also?

And, If thee One and ONLY Universe can be composed of many universes, which is what you CLAIM IS TRUE, then HOW?


Is One boat composed of multiple boats, as well?

The boat resting at a dock is not the same as one sailing through the water. Dually the same boat as having one sail then having the same sail replaced by another is not the same boat.

But in CONSTANT CHANGE is EXACTLY what this One and ONLY Universe IS, EXACTLY.

Also, there is NO problem at all of classification. If there is ANY problem at all, then it is the 'problem' that you are causing and creating by you attempts at WRONG classifying, in order to fit in with and suit your ALREADY held BELIEFS.

The classification of 'A Universe' MEANS that there can EVER only be thee One and only Universe.

"A" implies one amidst many. There is "a" dog and this dog is one among many.

And A Universe can also mean THEE One and ONLY Universe.

'A' does NOT 'HAVE TO' imply one amidst many at all. 'A' can ALSO imply One and ONLY amidst NONE ELSE.

You, human beings, can 'try to' reclassify things, or 'try to' redefine things, to suit, and fit in, with your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but all you are doing is confusing, complicating, and making hard what is essentially EXTREMELY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

False, the classifications are by default a part of the universe.

LOL
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am The one exists through the many and the many is an approximation of the one considering the one cannot be known in its totality.
You can try as MANY ways as you like to "justify" your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but that does NOT work.

By the way, the One is ALREADY KNOWN in Its Totality.

If the one is known in its totality then you would know all future events before they would happen. You would known tommorows lottery ticket numbers.

Being ALREADY KNOWN does NOT mean that it is ALREADY KNOWN by the 'me', OBVIOUSLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am We observe the one through the many thus the many is a facet of the one. This would be no different than seeing one line as composed of multiple lines, the one line is strictly many lines grouped together.

The one and the many are inseperable. The universe is both one and many.
I have ALREADY said that thee Universe is both One and composes of many. You, however, are just incapable, at the moment, to SEE and UNDERSTAND HOW thee Universe, Itself, does ACTUALLY exist independent of anything else.

It does not exist as independent of its many fractal parts.


LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of 'trying' absolutely ANY thing.

I just, OBVIOUSLY, said that thee One and ONLY Universe is both One and COMPOSES OF MANY. Therefore, thee One and ONLY Universe exists dependent upon its many fractal parts.

As I said, I have ALREADY said this AND AGREED WITH THIS.

You are being hilarious here SHOWING and REVEALING 'your' MANY attempts and ways to 'TRY TO' "justify" those ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, which you are OBVIOUSLY so strongly attempting to HOLD ONTO.

These fractal parts are all variations of the one thus different from the one. For example the number 2 is a recursion of one. Two is both a distinct number in itself and a variation of one as one number. In the number line progressing from one to two one and many number lines occur. One number line as the summation of all numbers and many numbers lines as each number line is distinct as a reflection of the singular number line which is distinct. The individual lines, ie multiple lines, reflect the same nature of the single number line, ie act as individual lines, given they are extensions of the one line and thus embody its properties.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6299
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:44 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:23 am

How could one universe be, logically and empirically, composed of multiple universes?

If a universe is a classification of a grouping of matter and space, then this does NOT mean that this classification of a grouping of matter and space includes the matter and space of ANOTHER universe. For if it was this way, then this would just be illogical, absurd, AND ridiculous.

The same manner in which one line is composed of multiple lines.



LOL Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

Is One human being composed of multiple human beings, also?

One person is composed of multiple identities given they socialize with multiple different types of people.

A VERY OBVIOUS twisted distortion on my clarifying question.

I asked about a 'human being'. You, however, responded with the words 'person' AND 'identities'.

A human being is a person and this personhood is what defines the human being as human being. Each human being exists through multiple human beings given the human being in x time and space is not the same human being in y time and space.

Is One 'person' composed of multiple 'persons', also?

Yes, see above.



And, If thee One and ONLY Universe can be composed of many universes, which is what you CLAIM IS TRUE, then HOW?

The universe exists through recursive fractals these recursive fractals are multiple universes stemming from the one. The one exists through the many.


Is One boat composed of multiple boats, as well?

The boat resting at a dock is not the same as one sailing through the water. Dually the same boat as having one sail then having the same sail replaced by another is not the same boat.

But in CONSTANT CHANGE is EXACTLY what this One and ONLY Universe IS, EXACTLY.

The universe as constant change is a different universe in x portion of a timeline compared to a universe in y portion of the timeline.



Also, there is NO problem at all of classification. If there is ANY problem at all, then it is the 'problem' that you are causing and creating by you attempts at WRONG classifying, in order to fit in with and suit your ALREADY held BELIEFS.

The classification of 'A Universe' MEANS that there can EVER only be thee One and only Universe.

"A" implies one amidst many. There is "a" dog and this dog is one among many.

And A Universe can also mean THEE One and ONLY Universe.

Now who is changing the definition to fit their beliefs :)?

'A' does NOT 'HAVE TO' imply one amidst many at all. 'A' can ALSO imply One and ONLY amidst NONE ELSE.

Implication implies, it does not show a direct cause and effect.

You, human beings, can 'try to' reclassify things, or 'try to' redefine things, to suit, and fit in, with your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but all you are doing is confusing, complicating, and making hard what is essentially EXTREMELY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

False, the classifications are by default a part of the universe.

LOL



You can try as MANY ways as you like to "justify" your ALREADY held BELIEFS, but that does NOT work.

By the way, the One is ALREADY KNOWN in Its Totality.



If the one is known in its totality then you would know all future events before they would happen. You would known tommorows lottery ticket numbers.

Being ALREADY KNOWN does NOT mean that it is ALREADY KNOWN by the 'me', OBVIOUSLY.





I have ALREADY said that thee Universe is both One and composes of many. You, however, are just incapable, at the moment, to SEE and UNDERSTAND HOW thee Universe, Itself, does ACTUALLY exist independent of anything else.

It does not exist as independent of its many fractal parts.


LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of 'trying' absolutely ANY thing.

I just, OBVIOUSLY, said that thee One and ONLY Universe is both One and COMPOSES OF MANY. Therefore, thee One and ONLY Universe exists dependent upon its many fractal parts.

As I said, I have ALREADY said this AND AGREED WITH THIS.

I said the universe is both one and many, not one and composes many.

Second each fractal part is a variation of the whole thus is distinctly different from the whole.

Each fractal part is a unique universe in and of itself and while the whole is a summation of these parts each part is fundamentally different from the whole.

There is no universe which is completely the same. To argue the universe is a summation of multiple universes is to argue that the universe is dependent upon many different universes thus is not completely dependent upon itself given the whole is different from each fractal it is dependent upon.


You are being hilarious here SHOWING and REVEALING 'your' MANY attempts and ways to 'TRY TO' "justify" those ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, which you are OBVIOUSLY so strongly attempting to HOLD ONTO.

These fractal parts are all variations of the one thus different from the one. For example the number 2 is a recursion of one. Two is both a distinct number in itself and a variation of one as one number. In the number line progressing from one to two one and many number lines occur. One number line as the summation of all numbers and many numbers lines as each number line is distinct as a reflection of the singular number line which is distinct. The individual lines, ie multiple lines, reflect the same nature of the single number line, ie act as individual lines, given they are extensions of the one line and thus embody its properties.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:29 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:44 pm
You can write and say, and, twist and distort absolutely any thing you like, absolutely any way you like. But the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6299
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:29 pm
You can write and say, and, twist and distort absolutely any thing you like, absolutely any way you like. But the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that.
That is your belief, according to you people rarely change their beliefs thus "the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that."
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:10 am
You can write and say, and, twist and distort absolutely any thing you like, absolutely any way you like. But the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that.
That is your belief,
But thee 'I' does NOT have ANY beliefs. Therefore, this is NOT and can NOT be my belief, logically.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm according to you people rarely change their beliefs thus "the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that."

I suggest that if a claim is made, then at least there is some thing which can be used to back up and support the claim, BEFORE the claim is actually made. So,

'who' and/or 'what', EXACTLY, are "you people", as was written in the claim made by the one known as "edonhoj7"?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6299
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:46 am

You can write and say, and, twist and distort absolutely any thing you like, absolutely any way you like. But the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that.
That is your belief,
But thee 'I' does NOT have ANY beliefs. Therefore, this is NOT and can NOT be my belief, logically.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:42 pm according to you people rarely change their beliefs thus "the only one that you are 'trying to' fool and deceive here is "your" OWN 'self'. And, you seem to be doing a EXCELLENT job of that."

I suggest that if a claim is made, then at least there is some thing which can be used to back up and support the claim, BEFORE the claim is actually made. So,

'who' and/or 'what', EXACTLY, are "you people", as was written in the claim made by the one known as "edonhoj7"?
Provide the context of the statement.
Post Reply