1=0 III

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Agent Smith »

Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 5:52 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:33 am
Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 1:14 am

you ARE Right, you REALLY ARE NOT a 'good reader' AT ALL.

I have already informed you that I will tell you how and why 1 does NOT equal 0, IF, and WHEN, you answer the question that I asked you, appropriately.

If you were actually keeping track of the discussion, then you would already know this.

By the way, the appropriate answer will EITHER be a 'yes' or a 'no' response. Do you NEED anymore HELP here?

We now, AGAIN, WAIT, to SEE what transpires.
😁

Did I not already inform you that time travel's possible is a perfectly sensible stand to take?
NOT in 'those words'.

What you ACTUALLY SAID WAS;
'I'm ok with time travel's possible.'
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:33 am Yes! Nothing else need be said.
BUT MY QUESTION did NOT involve what you responded above here.

In case you have FORGOTTEN, my question WAS and STILL IS;

Do you STILL want to CLAIM that there ACTUALLY EXISTS a so-called 'appropriate counter' to MY CLAIM?

We, AGAIN, AWAIT, to SEE, your ANSWER.
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:33 am Now tell me what you think of 1 = 0?
'This' seems rather DEMANDING, and especially in light of how long it has taken 'you' to inform 'us' of what 'you' think to the above question.

By the way I have ALREADY told you what I think of '1 = 0'.
What matters ta ya is interesting to say the least. I hope you're, in fact I'm fairly certain you're, not meetable (is that a word?) even if I do the exact opposite of what Momma Nature does. 🙂 Superb!

What I said has no bearing, my shtick per some folks over at StackExchange, on the OP's claim 1 = 0. I hope this message gets through to you. That in itself is a n entirely different topic which, ex mea (humble) sententia deserves a separate thread. Not, NOT, tooting me own horn ... just a feelin' ... being wrong is me forte, so yeah!

Since you're adamant that we have to first sort out what I said to put this discussion back on track, I have this to say: Metaphysics, just one word, a word that should lead ya to the right philosophical addresses - go knock on the door, but remember to ask the right questions or else ... slam!!

Regarding 1 = 0, your coyness to cough up the argument is understandable, but disappointing. Good day.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 6:28 am
Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 5:52 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:33 am

😁

Did I not already inform you that time travel's possible is a perfectly sensible stand to take?
NOT in 'those words'.

What you ACTUALLY SAID WAS;
'I'm ok with time travel's possible.'
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:33 am Yes! Nothing else need be said.
BUT MY QUESTION did NOT involve what you responded above here.

In case you have FORGOTTEN, my question WAS and STILL IS;

Do you STILL want to CLAIM that there ACTUALLY EXISTS a so-called 'appropriate counter' to MY CLAIM?

We, AGAIN, AWAIT, to SEE, your ANSWER.
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 3:33 am Now tell me what you think of 1 = 0?
'This' seems rather DEMANDING, and especially in light of how long it has taken 'you' to inform 'us' of what 'you' think to the above question.

By the way I have ALREADY told you what I think of '1 = 0'.
What matters ta ya is interesting to say the least. I hope you're, in fact I'm fairly certain you're, not meetable (is that a word?) even if I do the exact opposite of what Momma Nature does. 🙂 Superb!

What I said has no bearing, my shtick per some folks over at StackExchange, on the OP's claim 1 = 0. I hope this message gets through to you. That in itself is a n entirely different topic which, ex mea (humble) sententia deserves a separate thread. Not, NOT, tooting me own horn ... just a feelin' ... being wrong is me forte, so yeah!

Since you're adamant that we have to first sort out what I said to put this discussion back on track, I have this to say: Metaphysics, just one word, a word that should lead ya to the right philosophical addresses - go knock on the door, but remember to ask the right questions or else ... slam!!

Regarding 1 = 0, your coyness to cough up the argument is understandable, but disappointing. Good day.
Are 'you' even AWARE that all you have to SAY here, to ANSWER the QUESTION, is JUST 'yes' OR 'no'?

Also, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' that 1 does NOT equal 0. So, WHERE is the SUPPOSED 'coyness' here, EXACTLY?

REMEMBER that it IS 'you' who is NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS here, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT. Therefore, this then MEANS that it is 'you' who is being 'coy' here, or in other words just 'TRYING TO' RUN AWAY and HIDE.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Agent Smith »

Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 8:47 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 6:28 am
Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 5:52 am

NOT in 'those words'.

What you ACTUALLY SAID WAS;
'I'm ok with time travel's possible.'



BUT MY QUESTION did NOT involve what you responded above here.

In case you have FORGOTTEN, my question WAS and STILL IS;

Do you STILL want to CLAIM that there ACTUALLY EXISTS a so-called 'appropriate counter' to MY CLAIM?

We, AGAIN, AWAIT, to SEE, your ANSWER.



'This' seems rather DEMANDING, and especially in light of how long it has taken 'you' to inform 'us' of what 'you' think to the above question.

By the way I have ALREADY told you what I think of '1 = 0'.
What matters ta ya is interesting to say the least. I hope you're, in fact I'm fairly certain you're, not meetable (is that a word?) even if I do the exact opposite of what Momma Nature does. 🙂 Superb!

What I said has no bearing, my shtick per some folks over at StackExchange, on the OP's claim 1 = 0. I hope this message gets through to you. That in itself is a n entirely different topic which, ex mea (humble) sententia deserves a separate thread. Not, NOT, tooting me own horn ... just a feelin' ... being wrong is me forte, so yeah!

Since you're adamant that we have to first sort out what I said to put this discussion back on track, I have this to say: Metaphysics, just one word, a word that should lead ya to the right philosophical addresses - go knock on the door, but remember to ask the right questions or else ... slam!!

Regarding 1 = 0, your coyness to cough up the argument is understandable, but disappointing. Good day.
Are 'you' even AWARE that all you have to SAY here, to ANSWER the QUESTION, is JUST 'yes' OR 'no'?

Also, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' that 1 does NOT equal 0. So, WHERE is the SUPPOSED 'coyness' here, EXACTLY?

REMEMBER that it IS 'you' who is NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS here, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT. Therefore, this then MEANS that it is 'you' who is being 'coy' here, or in other words just 'TRYING TO' RUN AWAY and HIDE.
🤔 Hmmm

So false that 1 = 0? Ok, but the argument ... in the OP ... allegedly proves 1 = 0.

As for a yes/no answer to some question you posed a gazillion years ago, my response is yes if you wanted to know whether time travel's possible.

These are interesting times mon ami, oui? This is the age of ____ Age?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 9:10 am
Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 8:47 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 6:28 am

What matters ta ya is interesting to say the least. I hope you're, in fact I'm fairly certain you're, not meetable (is that a word?) even if I do the exact opposite of what Momma Nature does. 🙂 Superb!

What I said has no bearing, my shtick per some folks over at StackExchange, on the OP's claim 1 = 0. I hope this message gets through to you. That in itself is a n entirely different topic which, ex mea (humble) sententia deserves a separate thread. Not, NOT, tooting me own horn ... just a feelin' ... being wrong is me forte, so yeah!

Since you're adamant that we have to first sort out what I said to put this discussion back on track, I have this to say: Metaphysics, just one word, a word that should lead ya to the right philosophical addresses - go knock on the door, but remember to ask the right questions or else ... slam!!

Regarding 1 = 0, your coyness to cough up the argument is understandable, but disappointing. Good day.
Are 'you' even AWARE that all you have to SAY here, to ANSWER the QUESTION, is JUST 'yes' OR 'no'?

Also, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' that 1 does NOT equal 0. So, WHERE is the SUPPOSED 'coyness' here, EXACTLY?

REMEMBER that it IS 'you' who is NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS here, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT. Therefore, this then MEANS that it is 'you' who is being 'coy' here, or in other words just 'TRYING TO' RUN AWAY and HIDE.
🤔 Hmmm

So false that 1 = 0? Ok, but the argument ... in the OP ... allegedly proves 1 = 0.

As for a yes/no answer to some question you posed a gazillion years ago, my response is yes if you wanted to know whether time travel's possible.

These are interesting times mon ami, oui? This is the age of ____ Age?
'you' REALLY ARE NOT ANY GOOD AT ALL at READING and COMPREHENDING. But this is just the INABILITY of 'artificial intelligence' or 'those' who are NOT YET FULLY OPEN.

1 does NOT equal 0. End.

WHO 'alleges' that there is AN 'argument' in the opening post that supposedly PROVES 1 = 0?

Are 'you', "agent smith", going to ALLEGE 'this'?

I did NOT want to know whether time travel is possible. I ALREADY KNOW the ANSWER.

By the way, I WANTED a 'yes' or 'no' ANSWER to the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and then ASKED 'you'. But, OBVIOUSLY, this is NEVER going to happen here BECAUSE 'you' are PROVING that 'you' are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of READING and UNDERSTANDING.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Agent Smith »

Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 11:42 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 9:10 am
Age wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 8:47 am

Are 'you' even AWARE that all you have to SAY here, to ANSWER the QUESTION, is JUST 'yes' OR 'no'?

Also, I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you' that 1 does NOT equal 0. So, WHERE is the SUPPOSED 'coyness' here, EXACTLY?

REMEMBER that it IS 'you' who is NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS here, and 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT. Therefore, this then MEANS that it is 'you' who is being 'coy' here, or in other words just 'TRYING TO' RUN AWAY and HIDE.
🤔 Hmmm

So false that 1 = 0? Ok, but the argument ... in the OP ... allegedly proves 1 = 0.

As for a yes/no answer to some question you posed a gazillion years ago, my response is yes if you wanted to know whether time travel's possible.

These are interesting times mon ami, oui? This is the age of ____ Age?
'you' REALLY ARE NOT ANY GOOD AT ALL at READING and COMPREHENDING. But this is just the INABILITY of 'artificial intelligence' or 'those' who are NOT YET FULLY OPEN.

1 does NOT equal 0. End.

WHO 'alleges' that there is AN 'argument' in the opening post that supposedly PROVES 1 = 0?

Are 'you', "agent smith", going to ALLEGE 'this'?

I did NOT want to know whether time travel is possible. I ALREADY KNOW the ANSWER.

By the way, I WANTED a 'yes' or 'no' ANSWER to the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed and then ASKED 'you'. But, OBVIOUSLY, this is NEVER going to happen here BECAUSE 'you' are PROVING that 'you' are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of READING and UNDERSTANDING.
I intelligo mon ami.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 1:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 2:10 am

I KNOW, 'this' IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING and WRITING here. Had you REALLY NOT YET NOTICED 'this'?


That all depends on what the 'it' here IS, EXACTLY?


LOL
LOL
LOL

If this is what you want to BELIEVE is true, then that is perfectly fine and okay with me.



The ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY of this here SPEAKS, LOUD and CLEAR, for ITSELF.


Is this what you REALLY BELIEVE is true?


That 'you', adult human beings, ARE MISBEHAVING IS, OBVIOUSLY, Correct. BUT, MISBEHAVING IS, JUST AS OBVIOUS, NOT THE Correct 'thing' TO DO, in this One and ONLY Life.


OBVIOUSLY, one can be guided on HOW TO do some 'thing', AND THEN do 'it' for and/or by "them" 'self' For example, one could be TAUGHT, or GUIDED, on HOW TO FIND 'things' for and by "them" 'self, on their OWN, AND THEN that one COULD THEN go out, on their own, to FIND whatever they have been TAUGHT, or GUIDED ON HOW, TO FIND.


BUT I AM NOT 'reducing' ANY 'thing' here.

OBVIOUSLY there IS A 'Right' AND A 'Wrong', in Life.

Can you NOT YET SEE this Fact?


LOL Okay.

ALL 'things' that NEED EXPLAING take DIFFERENT lengths of response. ALL depending on the GUIDER/TEACHER and the LEARNER/STUDENT.

By the way, I KNOW that to EXPLAIN TO 'you', what can be EXPLAINED TO "another" in just three letters, could take a WHOLE lifetime of yours, and WITHOUT 'you' EVER becoming THE WISER
1. If the totality is without form then it is not a thing thus nothing.
BUT WHO WOULD EVER CLAIM that 'totality' is WITHOUT 'form'?

Has absolutely ANY one in this forum CLAIMED such a 'thing' as 'this'?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 2. What does 'it' mean to you?
EXACTLY as I SAID BEFORE, that ALL DEPENDS on what the 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

you brought up the 'it' word WITHOUT CLARIFYING what 'it' was in reference TO, EXACTLY. So, that IS WHY I SAID what I did here BEFORE, and have AGAIN, now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 3. Then there is only space and space contradicts itself when form occurs (form is a space between spaces thus space standing apart from itself).
'you' REALLY DO TWIST and DISTORT 'things' AROUND SO MUCH "eodnhoj7", and thus WHY you end up SAYING the MOST STUPID, ABSURD, SELF-CONTRADICTORY and RIDICULOUS 'things', like AGAIN just here now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 4. Do you believe that is the right question to ask?
NO, NOT AT ALL.

As I CONTINUALLY INFORM 'you', people, here. I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing' AT ALL, (except for the One 'thing', which is NOT in the question that you just asked here).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 5. If all is one, and the one is correct, then misbehaving is part of the one and is correct.
If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm This necessitates the one contradicts itself and is no longer the one as with contradiction anything goes therefore multiplicity occurs as well.
'This' does NOT necessitate what you say here AT ALL. What the 'this' word refers to IS JUST STUPID and NONSENSICAL to BEGIN WITH. Which, ACTUALLY necessitates TO just MORE ABSURDITY here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 6. If they are following out a path laid before them, i.e. what is taught,
But WHO CLAIMS there WAS SOME 'path laid before them'?

Did you REALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WROTE and SAID above here?

YOUR WORDS here SEEM TO PROVE you DID NOT.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm then they are not doing it on there own as the path guides them.
WHAT 'path' are you going on ABOUT here?

I NEVER mentioned ANY 'thing' ABOUT ANY 'path', and, I do NOT recall you ever mentioning the 'path' word prior EITHER.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 7. And yet both occur thus leaving us with contradiction.
you USE the 'contradiction' word in A WAY that I have NEVER come across with "ANOTHER" one of 'you' human beings.

How are 'you' DEFINING the 'contradiction' word here "eodnhoj7"?

To me there IS A Right and A Wrong, in Life, just like there IS A left (foot) and A right (foot), but 'these' do NOT leave me with absolutely ANY 'contradiction' AT ALL.

BUT BECAUSE you seem to be USING the word 'contradiction' in some OTHER way, we WILL WAIT to SEE what TRANSPIRES here now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 8. If you are here to learn how to socialize with others then technically I am teaching you
1. I am NOT here to learn how to 'socialize'. I am here to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

2. YES, VERY True 'you', "eodnhoj7", are TEACHING 'me' how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings. But NOT necessarily in THE WAY that you might think nor envision.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm and "what can be EXPLAINED TO "another" in just three letters, could take a WHOLE lifetime of yours, and WITHOUT 'you' EVER becoming THE WISER."
Wow REALLY?

If yes, then what are those three letters, EXACTLY?
1. I am. Are you saying form can occur without comparison?

2. You are not explaining what 'clarifying' means.

3. So a form is not a space between spaces? The circle is not the space between the inner and outer circle?

4. So does it matter if it is the right question to ask if you neither believe or disbelieve it (i.e. the question you asked)?

5. So the one is neither correct nor not correct thus all that is a part of it is neither correct nor not correct, as all that is a part of the one is the one....so how can you claim I am wrong?

6. Prove to who...you? Proof is relative. The words you stated may be viewed as proof that you are not clear enough.

7. Contradiction is 'opposition' or 'a standing apart from'. Right and Wrong stand apart from each other otherwise there would be no distinction between the two. In manifesting a duality you are manifesting a contradiction.

8. What do you mean by "EXACTLY"?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 1:53 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm

1. If the totality is without form then it is not a thing thus nothing.
BUT WHO WOULD EVER CLAIM that 'totality' is WITHOUT 'form'?

Has absolutely ANY one in this forum CLAIMED such a 'thing' as 'this'?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 2. What does 'it' mean to you?
EXACTLY as I SAID BEFORE, that ALL DEPENDS on what the 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

you brought up the 'it' word WITHOUT CLARIFYING what 'it' was in reference TO, EXACTLY. So, that IS WHY I SAID what I did here BEFORE, and have AGAIN, now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 3. Then there is only space and space contradicts itself when form occurs (form is a space between spaces thus space standing apart from itself).
'you' REALLY DO TWIST and DISTORT 'things' AROUND SO MUCH "eodnhoj7", and thus WHY you end up SAYING the MOST STUPID, ABSURD, SELF-CONTRADICTORY and RIDICULOUS 'things', like AGAIN just here now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 4. Do you believe that is the right question to ask?
NO, NOT AT ALL.

As I CONTINUALLY INFORM 'you', people, here. I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing' AT ALL, (except for the One 'thing', which is NOT in the question that you just asked here).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 5. If all is one, and the one is correct, then misbehaving is part of the one and is correct.
If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm This necessitates the one contradicts itself and is no longer the one as with contradiction anything goes therefore multiplicity occurs as well.
'This' does NOT necessitate what you say here AT ALL. What the 'this' word refers to IS JUST STUPID and NONSENSICAL to BEGIN WITH. Which, ACTUALLY necessitates TO just MORE ABSURDITY here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 6. If they are following out a path laid before them, i.e. what is taught,
But WHO CLAIMS there WAS SOME 'path laid before them'?

Did you REALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WROTE and SAID above here?

YOUR WORDS here SEEM TO PROVE you DID NOT.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm then they are not doing it on there own as the path guides them.
WHAT 'path' are you going on ABOUT here?

I NEVER mentioned ANY 'thing' ABOUT ANY 'path', and, I do NOT recall you ever mentioning the 'path' word prior EITHER.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 7. And yet both occur thus leaving us with contradiction.
you USE the 'contradiction' word in A WAY that I have NEVER come across with "ANOTHER" one of 'you' human beings.

How are 'you' DEFINING the 'contradiction' word here "eodnhoj7"?

To me there IS A Right and A Wrong, in Life, just like there IS A left (foot) and A right (foot), but 'these' do NOT leave me with absolutely ANY 'contradiction' AT ALL.

BUT BECAUSE you seem to be USING the word 'contradiction' in some OTHER way, we WILL WAIT to SEE what TRANSPIRES here now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm 8. If you are here to learn how to socialize with others then technically I am teaching you
1. I am NOT here to learn how to 'socialize'. I am here to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

2. YES, VERY True 'you', "eodnhoj7", are TEACHING 'me' how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings. But NOT necessarily in THE WAY that you might think nor envision.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 05, 2023 8:14 pm and "what can be EXPLAINED TO "another" in just three letters, could take a WHOLE lifetime of yours, and WITHOUT 'you' EVER becoming THE WISER."
Wow REALLY?

If yes, then what are those three letters, EXACTLY?
1. I am.
Okay. So, do 'you' HAVE ANY ACTUAL 'proof' backing up and supporting 'this CLAIM' of 'yours' here ?

If yes, then WILL 'you' PROVIDE 'it' here?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Are you saying form can occur without comparison?
YES, and I WILL REPEAT, the ANSWER to your QUESTION here IS a RESOUNDING, YES.

The Universe, for example, is One form, WITHOUT comparison, OBVIOUSLY.

And 'this' HAS TO BE, and thus IS, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS BECAUSE the Universe HAS TO BE, and thus IS, INFINITE and ETERNAL. And THUS, by Its VERY Nature, HAS TO BE 'WITHOUT comparison'

Now that 'this' IS RESOLVED, can we MOVE ALONG HERE, NOW?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 2. You are not explaining what 'clarifying' means.
ABSOLUTELY NO one has EVER ASKED 'me' to explain what 'clarifying' means.

So, this is the VERY REASON WHY I am NOT explaining what 'clarifying' means.

Just like 'you' are NOT explaining what 'defining' means here, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NO one has ASKED 'you' to explain what 'defining' means here, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 3. So a form is not a space between spaces?
NOT by 'itself' and NOT necessarily so.

Any DESIGNATED 'space' between DESIGNATED 'spaces' may well be classed as, and thus DESIGNATED as, 'a form', that is; If ANY one WANTS to DO 'this'. But, to me, 'space' is just the distance between or around 'matter', itself. And, 'a form', to me, is just some 'thing', which has been DESIGNATED, by 'you', 'things', in 'human being' 'form', which ALL conceptually DESIGNATED 'forms' are made up of, and thus consist of, the two 'things' known as 'space' and 'matter', either combined together or separately.

Is 'this' ANY CLEARER, for 'you'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm The circle is not the space between the inner and outer circle?
Okay. If 'this' what you want to SAY and BELIEVE, then do NOT let ANY one STOP 'you'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 4. So does it matter if it is the right question to ask if you neither believe or disbelieve it (i.e. the question you asked)?
'That' or ANY QUESTION IS the 'right question' to ASK, FOR 'me', WHEN I want to LEARN some 'thing' NEW or MORE, or to OBTAIN CLARITY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 5. So the one is neither correct nor not correct thus all that is a part of it is neither correct nor not correct, as all that is a part of the one is the one....so how can you claim I am wrong?
WHY did 'you' RESPOND WITH; 'So, the one is neither correct nor not correct thus ...' to what I ACTUALLY WROTE, which WAS; If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 6. Prove to who...you?
To ABSOLUTELY ANY one who can SEE that 'your words' SEEM to PROVE that 'you' did NOT ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY WROTE and USED.

Which, by the way, 'you' SEEM to be DOING here ONCE AGAIN.

Did 'you' SEE the 'SEEM' word that I ACTUALLY WROTE, and USED, in capital letters by the way to make 'that word' even CLEARER and MORE EASILY SEEN, ALSO.

'SEEM to PROVE' is NOT the SAME as 'PROVE', if 'you' were NOT YET AWARE.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Proof is relative.
Is there absolutely ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'relative'?

If yes, then what IS 'that', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm The words you stated may be viewed as proof that you are not clear enough.
'Not clear enough', In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 7. Contradiction is 'opposition' or 'a standing apart from'.
But the 'or' word here does NOT work PROPERLY nor Correctly.

The word 'contradiction' may well mean, or refer to, 'opposition' (in some form), and so because 'contradiction' is a form of 'opposition', then 'that', by itself, means, or refers to, 'standing apart from', However, the word 'contradiction' does NOT necessarily mean, nor refer to, 'a standing apart from', by itself. As 'a tree' 'stands apart from' 'an igloo', for example, but there is OBVIOUSLY NO 'contradiction' ANYWHERE 'here' NOR 'there'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Right and Wrong stand apart from each other otherwise there would be no distinction between the two.
YES, it would be rather FOOLISH and IDIOTIC if 'you', human beings, now started MAKING UP and USING the 'Right' and 'Wrong' words to MEAN, or REFER TO, the EXACT SAME 'thing/s'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm In manifesting a duality you are manifesting a contradiction.
If I recall CORRECTLY, I have ALREADY ASKED 'you' to INFORM 'us' of what the 'contradiction' word MEANS, or REFERS TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?

Have 'you' DONE SO, ALREADY?

If no, then WILL 'you' now DO SO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

To 'me', and "others", when 'duality' IS being MANIFESTED, through CONCEIVING OF, and/or the CONCEPTIONS ABOUT 'duality', then there is NOT necessarily a CONCEPTUALLY CONCEIVED 'contradiction' being manifested, AS WELL, AT ALL.

Now, OF COURSE, 'you', "eodhnoj7", may well CREATE some sort of PERCEIVED 'contradiction' on EVERY occasion here. 'This' 'you' ARE COMPLETELY FREE TO DO. Or, 'you' may well have some particular DEFINITION of and for the word 'contradiction', which MAKES 'contradiction' MANIFEST EVERY time 'you' MANIFEST 'duality', CONCEPTUALLY. Which, AGAIN, for 'you' TO DO SO 'you' are completely FREE TO DO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 8. What do you mean by "EXACTLY"?
In a way, which is NOT 'INACCURATE' AT ALL. Which ALSO MEANS, in a way, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 1:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 06, 2023 1:53 am

BUT WHO WOULD EVER CLAIM that 'totality' is WITHOUT 'form'?

Has absolutely ANY one in this forum CLAIMED such a 'thing' as 'this'?

If yes, then WHO, EXACTLY?


EXACTLY as I SAID BEFORE, that ALL DEPENDS on what the 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

you brought up the 'it' word WITHOUT CLARIFYING what 'it' was in reference TO, EXACTLY. So, that IS WHY I SAID what I did here BEFORE, and have AGAIN, now.


'you' REALLY DO TWIST and DISTORT 'things' AROUND SO MUCH "eodnhoj7", and thus WHY you end up SAYING the MOST STUPID, ABSURD, SELF-CONTRADICTORY and RIDICULOUS 'things', like AGAIN just here now.



NO, NOT AT ALL.

As I CONTINUALLY INFORM 'you', people, here. I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing' AT ALL, (except for the One 'thing', which is NOT in the question that you just asked here).



If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.


'This' does NOT necessitate what you say here AT ALL. What the 'this' word refers to IS JUST STUPID and NONSENSICAL to BEGIN WITH. Which, ACTUALLY necessitates TO just MORE ABSURDITY here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.


But WHO CLAIMS there WAS SOME 'path laid before them'?

Did you REALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I WROTE and SAID above here?

YOUR WORDS here SEEM TO PROVE you DID NOT.


WHAT 'path' are you going on ABOUT here?

I NEVER mentioned ANY 'thing' ABOUT ANY 'path', and, I do NOT recall you ever mentioning the 'path' word prior EITHER.



you USE the 'contradiction' word in A WAY that I have NEVER come across with "ANOTHER" one of 'you' human beings.

How are 'you' DEFINING the 'contradiction' word here "eodnhoj7"?

To me there IS A Right and A Wrong, in Life, just like there IS A left (foot) and A right (foot), but 'these' do NOT leave me with absolutely ANY 'contradiction' AT ALL.

BUT BECAUSE you seem to be USING the word 'contradiction' in some OTHER way, we WILL WAIT to SEE what TRANSPIRES here now.


1. I am NOT here to learn how to 'socialize'. I am here to LEARN how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.

2. YES, VERY True 'you', "eodnhoj7", are TEACHING 'me' how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings. But NOT necessarily in THE WAY that you might think nor envision.


Wow REALLY?

If yes, then what are those three letters, EXACTLY?
1. I am.
Okay. So, do 'you' HAVE ANY ACTUAL 'proof' backing up and supporting 'this CLAIM' of 'yours' here ?

If yes, then WILL 'you' PROVIDE 'it' here?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Are you saying form can occur without comparison?
YES, and I WILL REPEAT, the ANSWER to your QUESTION here IS a RESOUNDING, YES.

The Universe, for example, is One form, WITHOUT comparison, OBVIOUSLY.

And 'this' HAS TO BE, and thus IS, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS BECAUSE the Universe HAS TO BE, and thus IS, INFINITE and ETERNAL. And THUS, by Its VERY Nature, HAS TO BE 'WITHOUT comparison'

Now that 'this' IS RESOLVED, can we MOVE ALONG HERE, NOW?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 2. You are not explaining what 'clarifying' means.
ABSOLUTELY NO one has EVER ASKED 'me' to explain what 'clarifying' means.

So, this is the VERY REASON WHY I am NOT explaining what 'clarifying' means.

Just like 'you' are NOT explaining what 'defining' means here, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NO one has ASKED 'you' to explain what 'defining' means here, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 3. So a form is not a space between spaces?
NOT by 'itself' and NOT necessarily so.

Any DESIGNATED 'space' between DESIGNATED 'spaces' may well be classed as, and thus DESIGNATED as, 'a form', that is; If ANY one WANTS to DO 'this'. But, to me, 'space' is just the distance between or around 'matter', itself. And, 'a form', to me, is just some 'thing', which has been DESIGNATED, by 'you', 'things', in 'human being' 'form', which ALL conceptually DESIGNATED 'forms' are made up of, and thus consist of, the two 'things' known as 'space' and 'matter', either combined together or separately.

Is 'this' ANY CLEARER, for 'you'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm The circle is not the space between the inner and outer circle?
Okay. If 'this' what you want to SAY and BELIEVE, then do NOT let ANY one STOP 'you'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 4. So does it matter if it is the right question to ask if you neither believe or disbelieve it (i.e. the question you asked)?
'That' or ANY QUESTION IS the 'right question' to ASK, FOR 'me', WHEN I want to LEARN some 'thing' NEW or MORE, or to OBTAIN CLARITY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 5. So the one is neither correct nor not correct thus all that is a part of it is neither correct nor not correct, as all that is a part of the one is the one....so how can you claim I am wrong?
WHY did 'you' RESPOND WITH; 'So, the one is neither correct nor not correct thus ...' to what I ACTUALLY WROTE, which WAS; If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 6. Prove to who...you?
To ABSOLUTELY ANY one who can SEE that 'your words' SEEM to PROVE that 'you' did NOT ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY WROTE and USED.

Which, by the way, 'you' SEEM to be DOING here ONCE AGAIN.

Did 'you' SEE the 'SEEM' word that I ACTUALLY WROTE, and USED, in capital letters by the way to make 'that word' even CLEARER and MORE EASILY SEEN, ALSO.

'SEEM to PROVE' is NOT the SAME as 'PROVE', if 'you' were NOT YET AWARE.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Proof is relative.
Is there absolutely ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'relative'?

If yes, then what IS 'that', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm The words you stated may be viewed as proof that you are not clear enough.
'Not clear enough', In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 7. Contradiction is 'opposition' or 'a standing apart from'.
But the 'or' word here does NOT work PROPERLY nor Correctly.

The word 'contradiction' may well mean, or refer to, 'opposition' (in some form), and so because 'contradiction' is a form of 'opposition', then 'that', by itself, means, or refers to, 'standing apart from', However, the word 'contradiction' does NOT necessarily mean, nor refer to, 'a standing apart from', by itself. As 'a tree' 'stands apart from' 'an igloo', for example, but there is OBVIOUSLY NO 'contradiction' ANYWHERE 'here' NOR 'there'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Right and Wrong stand apart from each other otherwise there would be no distinction between the two.
YES, it would be rather FOOLISH and IDIOTIC if 'you', human beings, now started MAKING UP and USING the 'Right' and 'Wrong' words to MEAN, or REFER TO, the EXACT SAME 'thing/s'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm In manifesting a duality you are manifesting a contradiction.
If I recall CORRECTLY, I have ALREADY ASKED 'you' to INFORM 'us' of what the 'contradiction' word MEANS, or REFERS TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?

Have 'you' DONE SO, ALREADY?

If no, then WILL 'you' now DO SO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

To 'me', and "others", when 'duality' IS being MANIFESTED, through CONCEIVING OF, and/or the CONCEPTIONS ABOUT 'duality', then there is NOT necessarily a CONCEPTUALLY CONCEIVED 'contradiction' being manifested, AS WELL, AT ALL.

Now, OF COURSE, 'you', "eodhnoj7", may well CREATE some sort of PERCEIVED 'contradiction' on EVERY occasion here. 'This' 'you' ARE COMPLETELY FREE TO DO. Or, 'you' may well have some particular DEFINITION of and for the word 'contradiction', which MAKES 'contradiction' MANIFEST EVERY time 'you' MANIFEST 'duality', CONCEPTUALLY. Which, AGAIN, for 'you' TO DO SO 'you' are completely FREE TO DO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 8. What do you mean by "EXACTLY"?
In a way, which is NOT 'INACCURATE' AT ALL. Which ALSO MEANS, in a way, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.
Why all the questions? What you do not know everything already?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 1:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm

1. I am.
Okay. So, do 'you' HAVE ANY ACTUAL 'proof' backing up and supporting 'this CLAIM' of 'yours' here ?

If yes, then WILL 'you' PROVIDE 'it' here?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Are you saying form can occur without comparison?
YES, and I WILL REPEAT, the ANSWER to your QUESTION here IS a RESOUNDING, YES.

The Universe, for example, is One form, WITHOUT comparison, OBVIOUSLY.

And 'this' HAS TO BE, and thus IS, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS BECAUSE the Universe HAS TO BE, and thus IS, INFINITE and ETERNAL. And THUS, by Its VERY Nature, HAS TO BE 'WITHOUT comparison'

Now that 'this' IS RESOLVED, can we MOVE ALONG HERE, NOW?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 2. You are not explaining what 'clarifying' means.
ABSOLUTELY NO one has EVER ASKED 'me' to explain what 'clarifying' means.

So, this is the VERY REASON WHY I am NOT explaining what 'clarifying' means.

Just like 'you' are NOT explaining what 'defining' means here, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NO one has ASKED 'you' to explain what 'defining' means here, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 3. So a form is not a space between spaces?
NOT by 'itself' and NOT necessarily so.

Any DESIGNATED 'space' between DESIGNATED 'spaces' may well be classed as, and thus DESIGNATED as, 'a form', that is; If ANY one WANTS to DO 'this'. But, to me, 'space' is just the distance between or around 'matter', itself. And, 'a form', to me, is just some 'thing', which has been DESIGNATED, by 'you', 'things', in 'human being' 'form', which ALL conceptually DESIGNATED 'forms' are made up of, and thus consist of, the two 'things' known as 'space' and 'matter', either combined together or separately.

Is 'this' ANY CLEARER, for 'you'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm The circle is not the space between the inner and outer circle?
Okay. If 'this' what you want to SAY and BELIEVE, then do NOT let ANY one STOP 'you'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 4. So does it matter if it is the right question to ask if you neither believe or disbelieve it (i.e. the question you asked)?
'That' or ANY QUESTION IS the 'right question' to ASK, FOR 'me', WHEN I want to LEARN some 'thing' NEW or MORE, or to OBTAIN CLARITY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 5. So the one is neither correct nor not correct thus all that is a part of it is neither correct nor not correct, as all that is a part of the one is the one....so how can you claim I am wrong?
WHY did 'you' RESPOND WITH; 'So, the one is neither correct nor not correct thus ...' to what I ACTUALLY WROTE, which WAS; If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 6. Prove to who...you?
To ABSOLUTELY ANY one who can SEE that 'your words' SEEM to PROVE that 'you' did NOT ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY WROTE and USED.

Which, by the way, 'you' SEEM to be DOING here ONCE AGAIN.

Did 'you' SEE the 'SEEM' word that I ACTUALLY WROTE, and USED, in capital letters by the way to make 'that word' even CLEARER and MORE EASILY SEEN, ALSO.

'SEEM to PROVE' is NOT the SAME as 'PROVE', if 'you' were NOT YET AWARE.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Proof is relative.
Is there absolutely ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'relative'?

If yes, then what IS 'that', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm The words you stated may be viewed as proof that you are not clear enough.
'Not clear enough', In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 7. Contradiction is 'opposition' or 'a standing apart from'.
But the 'or' word here does NOT work PROPERLY nor Correctly.

The word 'contradiction' may well mean, or refer to, 'opposition' (in some form), and so because 'contradiction' is a form of 'opposition', then 'that', by itself, means, or refers to, 'standing apart from', However, the word 'contradiction' does NOT necessarily mean, nor refer to, 'a standing apart from', by itself. As 'a tree' 'stands apart from' 'an igloo', for example, but there is OBVIOUSLY NO 'contradiction' ANYWHERE 'here' NOR 'there'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm Right and Wrong stand apart from each other otherwise there would be no distinction between the two.
YES, it would be rather FOOLISH and IDIOTIC if 'you', human beings, now started MAKING UP and USING the 'Right' and 'Wrong' words to MEAN, or REFER TO, the EXACT SAME 'thing/s'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm In manifesting a duality you are manifesting a contradiction.
If I recall CORRECTLY, I have ALREADY ASKED 'you' to INFORM 'us' of what the 'contradiction' word MEANS, or REFERS TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?

Have 'you' DONE SO, ALREADY?

If no, then WILL 'you' now DO SO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

To 'me', and "others", when 'duality' IS being MANIFESTED, through CONCEIVING OF, and/or the CONCEPTIONS ABOUT 'duality', then there is NOT necessarily a CONCEPTUALLY CONCEIVED 'contradiction' being manifested, AS WELL, AT ALL.

Now, OF COURSE, 'you', "eodhnoj7", may well CREATE some sort of PERCEIVED 'contradiction' on EVERY occasion here. 'This' 'you' ARE COMPLETELY FREE TO DO. Or, 'you' may well have some particular DEFINITION of and for the word 'contradiction', which MAKES 'contradiction' MANIFEST EVERY time 'you' MANIFEST 'duality', CONCEPTUALLY. Which, AGAIN, for 'you' TO DO SO 'you' are completely FREE TO DO.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:07 pm 8. What do you mean by "EXACTLY"?
In a way, which is NOT 'INACCURATE' AT ALL. Which ALSO MEANS, in a way, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.
Why all the questions?
CURIOSITY.

And, to me, there is NOT that many here at all, REALLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:56 pm What you do not know everything already?
Is this QUESTION, in the way it is worded here, what you ACTUALLY MEANT to ASK?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 1:17 am

Okay. So, do 'you' HAVE ANY ACTUAL 'proof' backing up and supporting 'this CLAIM' of 'yours' here ?

If yes, then WILL 'you' PROVIDE 'it' here?

If no, then WHY NOT?



YES, and I WILL REPEAT, the ANSWER to your QUESTION here IS a RESOUNDING, YES.

The Universe, for example, is One form, WITHOUT comparison, OBVIOUSLY.

And 'this' HAS TO BE, and thus IS, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS BECAUSE the Universe HAS TO BE, and thus IS, INFINITE and ETERNAL. And THUS, by Its VERY Nature, HAS TO BE 'WITHOUT comparison'

Now that 'this' IS RESOLVED, can we MOVE ALONG HERE, NOW?


ABSOLUTELY NO one has EVER ASKED 'me' to explain what 'clarifying' means.

So, this is the VERY REASON WHY I am NOT explaining what 'clarifying' means.

Just like 'you' are NOT explaining what 'defining' means here, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NO one has ASKED 'you' to explain what 'defining' means here, right?


NOT by 'itself' and NOT necessarily so.

Any DESIGNATED 'space' between DESIGNATED 'spaces' may well be classed as, and thus DESIGNATED as, 'a form', that is; If ANY one WANTS to DO 'this'. But, to me, 'space' is just the distance between or around 'matter', itself. And, 'a form', to me, is just some 'thing', which has been DESIGNATED, by 'you', 'things', in 'human being' 'form', which ALL conceptually DESIGNATED 'forms' are made up of, and thus consist of, the two 'things' known as 'space' and 'matter', either combined together or separately.

Is 'this' ANY CLEARER, for 'you'?


Okay. If 'this' what you want to SAY and BELIEVE, then do NOT let ANY one STOP 'you'.


'That' or ANY QUESTION IS the 'right question' to ASK, FOR 'me', WHEN I want to LEARN some 'thing' NEW or MORE, or to OBTAIN CLARITY.


WHY did 'you' RESPOND WITH; 'So, the one is neither correct nor not correct thus ...' to what I ACTUALLY WROTE, which WAS; If 'the one' is correct, or NOT correct, is, AGAIN, ANOTHER completely and utterly STUPID and NONSENSICAL remark and comment.'?



To ABSOLUTELY ANY one who can SEE that 'your words' SEEM to PROVE that 'you' did NOT ACTUALLY READ the ACTUAL WORDS that I ACTUALLY WROTE and USED.

Which, by the way, 'you' SEEM to be DOING here ONCE AGAIN.

Did 'you' SEE the 'SEEM' word that I ACTUALLY WROTE, and USED, in capital letters by the way to make 'that word' even CLEARER and MORE EASILY SEEN, ALSO.

'SEEM to PROVE' is NOT the SAME as 'PROVE', if 'you' were NOT YET AWARE.


Is there absolutely ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'relative'?

If yes, then what IS 'that', EXACTLY?



'Not clear enough', In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?


But the 'or' word here does NOT work PROPERLY nor Correctly.

The word 'contradiction' may well mean, or refer to, 'opposition' (in some form), and so because 'contradiction' is a form of 'opposition', then 'that', by itself, means, or refers to, 'standing apart from', However, the word 'contradiction' does NOT necessarily mean, nor refer to, 'a standing apart from', by itself. As 'a tree' 'stands apart from' 'an igloo', for example, but there is OBVIOUSLY NO 'contradiction' ANYWHERE 'here' NOR 'there'.


YES, it would be rather FOOLISH and IDIOTIC if 'you', human beings, now started MAKING UP and USING the 'Right' and 'Wrong' words to MEAN, or REFER TO, the EXACT SAME 'thing/s'.


If I recall CORRECTLY, I have ALREADY ASKED 'you' to INFORM 'us' of what the 'contradiction' word MEANS, or REFERS TO, to 'you', EXACTLY?

Have 'you' DONE SO, ALREADY?

If no, then WILL 'you' now DO SO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

To 'me', and "others", when 'duality' IS being MANIFESTED, through CONCEIVING OF, and/or the CONCEPTIONS ABOUT 'duality', then there is NOT necessarily a CONCEPTUALLY CONCEIVED 'contradiction' being manifested, AS WELL, AT ALL.

Now, OF COURSE, 'you', "eodhnoj7", may well CREATE some sort of PERCEIVED 'contradiction' on EVERY occasion here. 'This' 'you' ARE COMPLETELY FREE TO DO. Or, 'you' may well have some particular DEFINITION of and for the word 'contradiction', which MAKES 'contradiction' MANIFEST EVERY time 'you' MANIFEST 'duality', CONCEPTUALLY. Which, AGAIN, for 'you' TO DO SO 'you' are completely FREE TO DO.


In a way, which is NOT 'INACCURATE' AT ALL. Which ALSO MEANS, in a way, which EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.
Why all the questions?
CURIOSITY.

And, to me, there is NOT that many here at all, REALLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:56 pm What you do not know everything already?
Is this QUESTION, in the way it is worded here, what you ACTUALLY MEANT to ASK?
How can you be curious and know everything?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:40 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:56 pm

Why all the questions?
CURIOSITY.

And, to me, there is NOT that many here at all, REALLY.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:56 pm What you do not know everything already?
Is this QUESTION, in the way it is worded here, what you ACTUALLY MEANT to ASK?
How can you be curious and know everything?
How could you even have such an OBVIOUSLY Truly ABSURD ASSUMPTION that I know everything?

I have OBVIOUSLY NEVER even implied this ANYWHERE, let alone said it nor even alluded to this absolutely ANYWHERE.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:40 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:30 am

CURIOSITY.

And, to me, there is NOT that many here at all, REALLY.



Is this QUESTION, in the way it is worded here, what you ACTUALLY MEANT to ASK?
How can you be curious and know everything?
How could you even have such an OBVIOUSLY Truly ABSURD ASSUMPTION that I know everything?

I have OBVIOUSLY NEVER even implied this ANYWHERE, let alone said it nor even alluded to this absolutely ANYWHERE.
Then if you don't know everything how do you know that you know?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:30 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:40 pm

How can you be curious and know everything?
How could you even have such an OBVIOUSLY Truly ABSURD ASSUMPTION that I know everything?

I have OBVIOUSLY NEVER even implied this ANYWHERE, let alone said it nor even alluded to this absolutely ANYWHERE.
Then if you don't know everything how do you know that you know?
Know 'what', EXACTLY?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:30 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:54 am

How could you even have such an OBVIOUSLY Truly ABSURD ASSUMPTION that I know everything?

I have OBVIOUSLY NEVER even implied this ANYWHERE, let alone said it nor even alluded to this absolutely ANYWHERE.
Then if you don't know everything how do you know that you know?
Know 'what', EXACTLY?
That you know...
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: 1=0 III

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:29 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:30 pm

Then if you don't know everything how do you know that you know?
Know 'what', EXACTLY?
That you know...
For the very simple fact that I am able to discern between what I know from what I think, and between knowing and thinking.
Post Reply