The Questions of Equivocation

[Eodnhoj7]

You are on the road to despair and confusion.
You cannot hold on to a context, and flip from one place to another like a drunken spider.
Duh "Universal Equality exists" yet not even two atoms can be the same.
Duh "Total equality is an oxymoron", yet it is easy to define the parameters of equality simply by nominating characteristics of, say, an atom, and ignoring other aspects of its secondary characteristics such as an atom's place in space/time which has to be unequal.

None of this has any value and is the same area of confusion as expressed by Roydop here:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35521&start=195

You are either a sock puppet of Roydop or if not I think you two are going to get on with your mutual incoherence.

Equality exists where two different phenomena share one or more similar qualities. Because no two phenomena are the same, equality requires the sharing of one or more qualities. Equality thus occurs in through grades or parts. In these respects all phenomenon, however different, are universally equal given they share the same quality known as "being". They are equal because of their similarities and all phenomena share the quality of "being". Because all phenomena share this quality all phenomena are equal, all phenomena being equal is universal equality.

I am glad you have resolved your utter confusion.
The only problem here is the idea of "being" which necessitates consciousness to distinguish it from "existing", and existing relies on verification by beings,(such as humans), who have perception, but does not require such verification for their existence.
So, yes, whatever a thing is, it shares in common a quality we call "existing", with other "things" we might chose to nominate.
DUH. Tautological masturbation.
Do you have a point to make?

Yes, because equivocation occurs only through grades and all phenomena share certain grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.) universal equivocation is possible. All phenomena equate even in there differences given these differences require sharing the same grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.).

[Sculptor]

Equality exists where two different phenomena share one or more similar qualities. Because no two phenomena are the same, equality requires the sharing of one or more qualities. Equality thus occurs in through grades or parts. In these respects all phenomenon, however different, are universally equal given they share the same quality known as "being". They are equal because of their similarities and all phenomena share the quality of "being". Because all phenomena share this quality all phenomena are equal, all phenomena being equal is universal equality.

I am glad you have resolved your utter confusion.
The only problem here is the idea of "being" which necessitates consciousness to distinguish it from "existing", and existing relies on verification by beings,(such as humans), who have perception, but does not require such verification for their existence.
So, yes, whatever a thing is, it shares in common a quality we call "existing", with other "things" we might chose to nominate.
DUH. Tautological masturbation.
Do you have a point to make?

Yes, because equivocation occurs only through grades and all phenomena share certain grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.) universal equivocation is possible. All phenomena equate even in there differences given these differences require sharing the same grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.).

Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

Aside from that I do not think you are saying much at all.
I find your problematising puzzling.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=580848 time=1656633121 user_id=14533]
Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?
[/quote]

Similarity is not the same thing as relationship. A relationship is an interaction. Similarity is a theoretical category.

Total similarity would be an exact copy, including unique place in space, time, and scale, which would them be one thing. Similarity is always purpose dependent.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am glad you have resolved your utter confusion.
The only problem here is the idea of "being" which necessitates consciousness to distinguish it from "existing", and existing relies on verification by beings,(such as humans), who have perception, but does not require such verification for their existence.
So, yes, whatever a thing is, it shares in common a quality we call "existing", with other "things" we might chose to nominate.
DUH. Tautological masturbation.
Do you have a point to make?

Yes, because equivocation occurs only through grades and all phenomena share certain grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.) universal equivocation is possible. All phenomena equate even in there differences given these differences require sharing the same grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.).

Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

Aside from that I do not think you are saying much at all.
I find your problematising puzzling.

"Much at all" is highly relative. Considering the premise that "everything equates" a whole moral stance evolves from it in the respect we must hold all things with a certain level of gratitude and respect.

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

[Eodnhoj7]

Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?

Similarity is not the same thing as relationship. A relationship is an interaction. Similarity is a theoretical category.

Total similarity would be an exact copy, including unique place in space, time, and scale, which would them be one thing. Similarity is always purpose dependent.

A similarity is a connection in the respect different things are connected by what they have in common; this commonality necessitates and absence of separation between said things. As a connection the similarity is a relationship.

[Sculptor]

Yes, because equivocation occurs only through grades and all phenomena share certain grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.) universal equivocation is possible. All phenomena equate even in there differences given these differences require sharing the same grades (being, form, space/time, movement, etc.).

Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

Aside from that I do not think you are saying much at all.
I find your problematising puzzling.

"Much at all" is highly relative. Considering the premise that "everything equates" a whole moral stance evolves from it in the respect we must hold all things with a certain level of gratitude and respect.

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

Did you even understand the meaning of my question, or have an answer?
Shall I ask it again?
Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

Aside from that I do not think you are saying much at all.
I find your problematising puzzling.

"Much at all" is highly relative. Considering the premise that "everything equates" a whole moral stance evolves from it in the respect we must hold all things with a certain level of gratitude and respect.

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

Did you even understand the meaning of my question, or have an answer?
Shall I ask it again?
Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

[Sculptor]

"Much at all" is highly relative. Considering the premise that "everything equates" a whole moral stance evolves from it in the respect we must hold all things with a certain level of gratitude and respect.

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

Did you even understand the meaning of my question, or have an answer?
Shall I ask it again?
Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

You are lost.

[Eodnhoj7]

Did you even understand the meaning of my question, or have an answer?
Shall I ask it again?
Do you agree that a pebble exists, whilst a cat, dog or human is a being?

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

You are lost.

I would hardly say that the observation of consciousness being universal necessitates one being lost in the respect that it mandates a certain respect for all things.

[Sculptor]

As to your question, you are separating existence from being in the respect that one is not conscious while the other is. This leads us to questions about how to define consciousness and we go down a rabbit hole. Given consciousness is dependent upon recieving impressions, through action and reaction, it can be argued that all of being has some degree of consciousness or another. From another perspective, that of materialism, all consciousness is the action and reaction of atoms/fields and in these respects it necessitates consciousness as equivocating to atoms/fields (therefore atoms/fields are aware).

You are lost.

I would hardly say that the observation of consciousness being universal necessitates one being lost in the respect that it mandates a certain respect for all things.

It is not possible to observe any universal. You are clearly lost in your own arrogance or a solipsistic fugue

[Eodnhoj7]

You are lost.

I would hardly say that the observation of consciousness being universal necessitates one being lost in the respect that it mandates a certain respect for all things.

It is not possible to observe any universal. You are clearly lost in your own arrogance or a solipsistic fugue

That is a universal negative. To say we cannot observe a universal is to say a universal statement of what reality is not and you fall into a paradox.

[Sculptor]

I would hardly say that the observation of consciousness being universal necessitates one being lost in the respect that it mandates a certain respect for all things.

It is not possible to observe any universal. You are clearly lost in your own arrogance or a solipsistic fugue

That is a universal negative. To say we cannot observe a universal is to say a universal statement of what reality is not and you fall into a paradox.

BOLLOX

[Eodnhoj7]

Two mammals share the same nature of mammal thus the two are connected as one through their relationship, their relationship is "mammal".

Equality is a relationship as it is a connection and if phenomena relate then they equivocate.

This is tied to my second point, which is best phrased through questions:

Where does total equality exist?

If total equality does not exist then is it not possible anything can equate if a similarity occurs?

Similarity is not the same thing as relationship. A relationship is an interaction. Similarity is a theoretical category.

Total similarity would be an exact copy, including unique place in space, time, and scale, which would them be one thing. Similarity is always purpose dependent.

1. A theoretical category is the observation of similar qualities interacting across differing phenomena.
2. Total similarity would result in no-thingness as there are no distinctions necessary for form to occur.