Reality is Both Meaningful and Meaningless

[Eodnhoj7]

The question "What is a process?" has a very good and detailed answer in computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurren ... r_science)

If those answers aren't satisfactory to you, consider that you didn't mean what you said.

'Process occurring through process' makes 'process' indistinct.

Process is a staged system and all of reality is a process, some more than others are understandable to our consciousness

If all of reality is a process, i.e. a staged system, then process occurs through process (staged system through staged system) as a process and 'process' becomes indistinct as there is nothing to compare it to as only it occurs. This is the contradiction of monism. From another angle there is another contradiction as if all is a process (i.e. stage system) then process distinguishes itself from process and this is a process. Process opposes itself.

[popeye1945]

'Process occurring through process' makes 'process' indistinct.

Process is a staged system and all of reality is a process, some more than others are understandable to our consciousness

If all of reality is a process, i.e. a staged system, then process occurs through process (staged system through staged system) as a process and 'process' becomes indistinct as there is nothing to compare it to as only it occurs. This is the contradiction of monism. From another angle there is another contradiction as if all is a process (i.e. stage system) then process distinguishes itself from process and this is a process. Process opposes itself.

Your talking nonsense, if you wish to make a pie, there is a process of ingredients involved, and part of the creation of the pie is baking it. No process through process, you're trying to make it abstractly absurd.

[Eodnhoj7]

Process is a staged system and all of reality is a process, some more than others are understandable to our consciousness

If all of reality is a process, i.e. a staged system, then process occurs through process (staged system through staged system) as a process and 'process' becomes indistinct as there is nothing to compare it to as only it occurs. This is the contradiction of monism. From another angle there is another contradiction as if all is a process (i.e. stage system) then process distinguishes itself from process and this is a process. Process opposes itself.

Your talking nonsense, if you wish to make a pie, there is a process of ingredients involved, and part of the creation of the pie is baking it. No process through process, you're trying to make it abstractly absurd.

It is absurd, that is the whole point. If all is reducible to any one thing, in this case "process", then process occurs through process (the same occurs if things only occur through consciousness). Dually the example of the pie does not negate the meta-processes, which goes to infinity: there is the process of the atoms moving in the ingredients, the process of my actions in forming the pie, the process of the conditions which form my actions (being in the kitchen, my motivations, etc.), the process of all the processes working together, etc.

[Darkneos]

1. Meaning is derived from one phenomenon being direct to another phenomenon.
2. Meaninglessness is the absence of one phenomenon being directed to another phenomenon.
3. If everything has meaning then all phenomenon are directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
4. If everything is without meaning then all phenomenon are not directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
5. Meaning is a phenomenon and as a phenomenon is directed towards itself as 'meaning means meaning' if everything has meaning.
6. If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something.
7. Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it.
8. 'Meaninglessness' means 'meaninglessness' thus follows the logic of points 6 and 7.
9. 'Meaninglessness' is without meaning thus self-negates leaving us with nothing other than meaning.
10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness.

1. Meaning is an extreme.
2. Meaninglessness is an extreme.
3. As extremes, and opposites, both cancel each other out thus leaving us with neither.

Again just more assertions without anything to support them.

Points 6 and 7 are wrong. Meaning can be self referential, in fact that is pretty much how it works. Stuff matters because we say it does and in doing so make it as such.

Point 1 and 2 aren’t correct either. Meaning is assigned. We assign value and significance to things. Just boiling it down to “phenomenon” is not only lazy but renders your point nonsensical (just like that boundary tripe I had to read in your other post). If it was just phenomenon directed at each other then a ball dropping would have meaning inherently, but it doesn’t. It only has meaning if we give it such.

Your last three points are just…wrong. Meaning and meaninglessness might be opposites but they don’t cancel each other out. It doesn’t work that way. You have both existing in the world.

Again, why are you even on this forum if all your stuff is just assertions you just want people to accept blindly. Your logic is poor in every thread I’ve seen.

I literally could have summarized all of this as “life is what you make it” which is a tautology.

But none of your logic follows. Again it’s just mindless and incoherent. Repeating a word several times doesn’t mean your point clearer. You’re just asserting things without explanation…again.

[popeye1945]

If all of reality is a process, i.e. a staged system, then process occurs through process (staged system through staged system) as a process and 'process' becomes indistinct as there is nothing to compare it to as only it occurs. This is the contradiction of monism. From another angle there is another contradiction as if all is a process (i.e. stage system) then process distinguishes itself from process and this is a process. Process opposes itself.

Your talking nonsense, if you wish to make a pie, there is a process of ingredients involved, and part of the creation of the pie is baking it. No process through process, you're trying to make it abstractly absurd.

It is absurd, that is the whole point. If all is reducible to any one thing, in this case "process", then process occurs through process (the same occurs if things only occur through consciousness). Dually the example of the pie does not negate the meta-processes, which goes to infinity: there is the process of the atoms moving in the ingredients, the process of my actions in forming the pie, the process of the conditions which form my actions (being in the kitchen, my motivations, etc.), the process of all the processes working together, etc.

You've lost me as to how this negates itself, there are all kinds of processes, process is ontology, as creativity.

[Darkneos]

Your talking nonsense, if you wish to make a pie, there is a process of ingredients involved, and part of the creation of the pie is baking it. No process through process, you're trying to make it abstractly absurd.

It is absurd, that is the whole point. If all is reducible to any one thing, in this case "process", then process occurs through process (the same occurs if things only occur through consciousness). Dually the example of the pie does not negate the meta-processes, which goes to infinity: there is the process of the atoms moving in the ingredients, the process of my actions in forming the pie, the process of the conditions which form my actions (being in the kitchen, my motivations, etc.), the process of all the processes working together, etc.

You've lost me as to how this negates itself, there are all kinds of processes, process is ontology, a means of creativity.

They seem to pick one word and then repeatedly use it as though that enhances the argument or drives the point home.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Meaning is derived from one phenomenon being direct to another phenomenon.
2. Meaninglessness is the absence of one phenomenon being directed to another phenomenon.
3. If everything has meaning then all phenomenon are directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
4. If everything is without meaning then all phenomenon are not directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
5. Meaning is a phenomenon and as a phenomenon is directed towards itself as 'meaning means meaning' if everything has meaning.
6. If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something.
7. Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it.
8. 'Meaninglessness' means 'meaninglessness' thus follows the logic of points 6 and 7.
9. 'Meaninglessness' is without meaning thus self-negates leaving us with nothing other than meaning.
10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness.

1. Meaning is an extreme.
2. Meaninglessness is an extreme.
3. As extremes, and opposites, both cancel each other out thus leaving us with neither.

Again just more assertions without anything to support them.

Points 6 and 7 are wrong. Meaning can be self referential, in fact that is pretty much how it works. Stuff matters because we say it does and in doing so make it as such.

Point 1 and 2 aren’t correct either. Meaning is assigned. We assign value and significance to things. Just boiling it down to “phenomenon” is not only lazy but renders your point nonsensical (just like that boundary tripe I had to read in your other post). If it was just phenomenon directed at each other then a ball dropping would have meaning inherently, but it doesn’t. It only has meaning if we give it such.

Your last three points are just…wrong. Meaning and meaninglessness might be opposites but they don’t cancel each other out. It doesn’t work that way. You have both existing in the world.

Again, why are you even on this forum if all your stuff is just assertions you just want people to accept blindly. Your logic is poor in every thread I’ve seen.

I literally could have summarized all of this as “life is what you make it” which is a tautology.

But none of your logic follows. Again it’s just mindless and incoherent. Repeating a word several times doesn’t mean your point clearer. You’re just asserting things without explanation…again.

Facepalm....

1. What you said is an assertion. And to support an assertion would require another assertion leaving us with just assertions.

2. Facepalm...I just said meaning is self-referential: "If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something."
"Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it."

2a. A self-referentiality that is the result of a thing directed only to itself and nothing beyond it results in no comparisons and comparisons are necessary for form. We only observe a table because of its comparison to a hand or to a wall or to the floor.

3. To assign meaning is to direct my observations towards it. In assigning meaning I am assigning a relationship between things where one thing results in another, one thing is directed towards another.

4. Do you even read? I never said they cancel eachother out and the title (as well as point 10 below) says both exist:
"10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness."

[Eodnhoj7]

Your talking nonsense, if you wish to make a pie, there is a process of ingredients involved, and part of the creation of the pie is baking it. No process through process, you're trying to make it abstractly absurd.

It is absurd, that is the whole point. If all is reducible to any one thing, in this case "process", then process occurs through process (the same occurs if things only occur through consciousness). Dually the example of the pie does not negate the meta-processes, which goes to infinity: there is the process of the atoms moving in the ingredients, the process of my actions in forming the pie, the process of the conditions which form my actions (being in the kitchen, my motivations, etc.), the process of all the processes working together, etc.

You've lost me as to how this negates itself, there are all kinds of processes, process is ontology, as creativity.

1. Whatever I observe is a process as the process entails some form of movement. I see a pie I see a process of atoms.

2. If everything (i.e. all that is observed and observable) is a process, as processes are both part of and contain other processes, then everything is unified under the phenomenon known as 'process'.

3. This unity of all things under the phenomenon known as 'process' makes process indistinct, in one respect, because there is nothing else to compare it to.

3a.In another respect, paradoxically to the previous point, if we make one process distinct from another, and this action of distinction is a process, then process is dividing process and we end with a contradiction. An example of this logic from another point of view would be a circle. There is the inner space of the circle and the outer space of the circle, the inner space and outer space is divided by the space which is the circle-form itself; space is dividing space as space.

[Darkneos]

1. Meaning is derived from one phenomenon being direct to another phenomenon.
2. Meaninglessness is the absence of one phenomenon being directed to another phenomenon.
3. If everything has meaning then all phenomenon are directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
4. If everything is without meaning then all phenomenon are not directed to a phenomenon beyond them.
5. Meaning is a phenomenon and as a phenomenon is directed towards itself as 'meaning means meaning' if everything has meaning.
6. If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something.
7. Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it.
8. 'Meaninglessness' means 'meaninglessness' thus follows the logic of points 6 and 7.
9. 'Meaninglessness' is without meaning thus self-negates leaving us with nothing other than meaning.
10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness.

1. Meaning is an extreme.
2. Meaninglessness is an extreme.
3. As extremes, and opposites, both cancel each other out thus leaving us with neither.

Again just more assertions without anything to support them.

Points 6 and 7 are wrong. Meaning can be self referential, in fact that is pretty much how it works. Stuff matters because we say it does and in doing so make it as such.

Point 1 and 2 aren’t correct either. Meaning is assigned. We assign value and significance to things. Just boiling it down to “phenomenon” is not only lazy but renders your point nonsensical (just like that boundary tripe I had to read in your other post). If it was just phenomenon directed at each other then a ball dropping would have meaning inherently, but it doesn’t. It only has meaning if we give it such.

Your last three points are just…wrong. Meaning and meaninglessness might be opposites but they don’t cancel each other out. It doesn’t work that way. You have both existing in the world.

Again, why are you even on this forum if all your stuff is just assertions you just want people to accept blindly. Your logic is poor in every thread I’ve seen.

I literally could have summarized all of this as “life is what you make it” which is a tautology.

But none of your logic follows. Again it’s just mindless and incoherent. Repeating a word several times doesn’t mean your point clearer. You’re just asserting things without explanation…again.

Facepalm....

1. What you said is an assertion. And to support an assertion would require another assertion leaving us with just assertions.

2. Facepalm...I just said meaning is self-referential: "If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something."
"Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it."

2a. A self-referentiality that is the result of a thing directed only to itself and nothing beyond it results in no comparisons and comparisons are necessary for form. We only observe a table because of its comparison to a hand or to a wall or to the floor.

3. To assign meaning is to direct my observations towards it. In assigning meaning I am assigning a relationship between things where one thing results in another, one thing is directed towards another.

4. Do you even read? I never said they cancel eachother out and the title (as well as point 10 below) says both exist:
"10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness."

1. It's not an assertion it's literally how meaning works.

2. Meaning is self referential and directed towards something beyond it. This is what it means to give meaning, because we say so. That's all it takes.

2a is nonsense.

4. I do read which is why I said what you said is nonsense. You don't understand logic. Meaning and meaninglessness don't self refute nor do they cancel each other out. Yes they both exist but there is no absurdity.

I feel like this sounds better in your head than on paper.

[Eodnhoj7]

Again just more assertions without anything to support them.

Points 6 and 7 are wrong. Meaning can be self referential, in fact that is pretty much how it works. Stuff matters because we say it does and in doing so make it as such.

Point 1 and 2 aren’t correct either. Meaning is assigned. We assign value and significance to things. Just boiling it down to “phenomenon” is not only lazy but renders your point nonsensical (just like that boundary tripe I had to read in your other post). If it was just phenomenon directed at each other then a ball dropping would have meaning inherently, but it doesn’t. It only has meaning if we give it such.

Your last three points are just…wrong. Meaning and meaninglessness might be opposites but they don’t cancel each other out. It doesn’t work that way. You have both existing in the world.

Again, why are you even on this forum if all your stuff is just assertions you just want people to accept blindly. Your logic is poor in every thread I’ve seen.

I literally could have summarized all of this as “life is what you make it” which is a tautology.

But none of your logic follows. Again it’s just mindless and incoherent. Repeating a word several times doesn’t mean your point clearer. You’re just asserting things without explanation…again.

Facepalm....

1. What you said is an assertion. And to support an assertion would require another assertion leaving us with just assertions.

2. Facepalm...I just said meaning is self-referential: "If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something."
"Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it."

2a. A self-referentiality that is the result of a thing directed only to itself and nothing beyond it results in no comparisons and comparisons are necessary for form. We only observe a table because of its comparison to a hand or to a wall or to the floor.

3. To assign meaning is to direct my observations towards it. In assigning meaning I am assigning a relationship between things where one thing results in another, one thing is directed towards another.

4. Do you even read? I never said they cancel eachother out and the title (as well as point 10 below) says both exist:
"10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness."

1. It's not an assertion it's literally how meaning works.

2. Meaning is self referential and directed towards something beyond it. This is what it means to give meaning, because we say so. That's all it takes.

2a is nonsense.

4. I do read which is why I said what you said is nonsense. You don't understand logic. Meaning and meaninglessness don't self refute nor do they cancel each other out. Yes they both exist but there is no absurdity.

I feel like this sounds better in your head than on paper.

1. Assertion; "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief."
https://www.google.com/search?q=asserti ... e&ie=UTF-8

2. And if something is directed to something else beyond it that thing which is directed is empty in itself as is is dependent upon something else. If it the thing is only self-referential then it is without comparison thus formless, as comparison is required for form. Either way we are left with emptiness.

3. Show me a form which either does not compare to other forms or is not composed of comparisons.

4. And what is logic without first making assumptions? If you argue logic through logic then logic becomes an empty self-referentiality.

[Darkneos]

Facepalm....

1. What you said is an assertion. And to support an assertion would require another assertion leaving us with just assertions.

2. Facepalm...I just said meaning is self-referential: "If only directed towards itself then meaning is self-referential and without the necessary comparison for it to be something."
"Meaning is thus meaningless as it is not directed towards anything beyond it."

2a. A self-referentiality that is the result of a thing directed only to itself and nothing beyond it results in no comparisons and comparisons are necessary for form. We only observe a table because of its comparison to a hand or to a wall or to the floor.

3. To assign meaning is to direct my observations towards it. In assigning meaning I am assigning a relationship between things where one thing results in another, one thing is directed towards another.

4. Do you even read? I never said they cancel eachother out and the title (as well as point 10 below) says both exist:
"10. 'Meaning' and 'meaninglessness' both self-refute thus resulting in the other, this dichotomy leaves us with the absurdity of there both being meaning and meaninglessness."

1. It's not an assertion it's literally how meaning works.

2. Meaning is self referential and directed towards something beyond it. This is what it means to give meaning, because we say so. That's all it takes.

2a is nonsense.

4. I do read which is why I said what you said is nonsense. You don't understand logic. Meaning and meaninglessness don't self refute nor do they cancel each other out. Yes they both exist but there is no absurdity.

I feel like this sounds better in your head than on paper.

1. Assertion; "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief."
https://www.google.com/search?q=asserti ... e&ie=UTF-8

2. And if something is directed to something else beyond it that thing which is directed is empty in itself as is is dependent upon something else. If it the thing is only self-referential then it is without comparison thus formless, as comparison is required for form. Either way we are left with emptiness.

3. Show me a form which either does not compare to other forms or is not composed of comparisons.

4. And what is logic without first making assumptions? If you argue logic through logic then logic becomes an empty self-referentiality.

Number 2 is just wrong. There is no emptiness if you make meaning and obviously meaning doesn't have form, it's a quality we give to something else. But it's not without comparison as there is meaninglessness.

For number 3 literally just look around you.

Number 4 would just refute all your posts to me so I suggest you retract that.

Trust me dude, I know nonduality better than you and this is just wrong.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. It's not an assertion it's literally how meaning works.

2. Meaning is self referential and directed towards something beyond it. This is what it means to give meaning, because we say so. That's all it takes.

2a is nonsense.

4. I do read which is why I said what you said is nonsense. You don't understand logic. Meaning and meaninglessness don't self refute nor do they cancel each other out. Yes they both exist but there is no absurdity.

I feel like this sounds better in your head than on paper.

1. Assertion; "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief."
https://www.google.com/search?q=asserti ... e&ie=UTF-8

2. And if something is directed to something else beyond it that thing which is directed is empty in itself as is is dependent upon something else. If it the thing is only self-referential then it is without comparison thus formless, as comparison is required for form. Either way we are left with emptiness.

3. Show me a form which either does not compare to other forms or is not composed of comparisons.

4. And what is logic without first making assumptions? If you argue logic through logic then logic becomes an empty self-referentiality.

Number 2 is just wrong. There is no emptiness if you make meaning and obviously meaning doesn't have form, it's a quality we give to something else. But it's not without comparison as there is meaninglessness.

For number 3 literally just look around you.

Number 4 would just refute all your posts to me so I suggest you retract that.

Trust me dude, I know nonduality better than you and this is just wrong.

I am not arguing for or against non-dualism and that is where you are making a mistake.

1. If meaning is formless it is empty. Meaning takes the form of that which we ascribe it too.
2. Yeah and I see things as distinct because of comparisons.
3. If it would refute all my posts then why not start with it?

Here is the third part of the Munchauseen Trilemma:
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[Darkneos]

1. Assertion; "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief."
https://www.google.com/search?q=asserti ... e&ie=UTF-8

2. And if something is directed to something else beyond it that thing which is directed is empty in itself as is is dependent upon something else. If it the thing is only self-referential then it is without comparison thus formless, as comparison is required for form. Either way we are left with emptiness.

3. Show me a form which either does not compare to other forms or is not composed of comparisons.

4. And what is logic without first making assumptions? If you argue logic through logic then logic becomes an empty self-referentiality.

Number 2 is just wrong. There is no emptiness if you make meaning and obviously meaning doesn't have form, it's a quality we give to something else. But it's not without comparison as there is meaninglessness.

For number 3 literally just look around you.

Number 4 would just refute all your posts to me so I suggest you retract that.

Trust me dude, I know nonduality better than you and this is just wrong.

I am not arguing for or against non-dualism and that is where you are making a mistake.

1. If meaning is formless it is empty. Meaning takes the form of that which we ascribe it too.
2. Yeah and I see things as distinct because of comparisons.
3. If it would refute all my posts then why not start with it?

Here is the third part of the Munchauseen Trilemma:
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Dude everything falls to the trilemma, even your argument (whatever it may be). So you're not scoring points with that one.

1. Formless doesn't mean empty. Also it doesn't take the form of what we ascribe it to. You're literally just making shit up to prop your arguments up.

2. No.

[Eodnhoj7]

Number 2 is just wrong. There is no emptiness if you make meaning and obviously meaning doesn't have form, it's a quality we give to something else. But it's not without comparison as there is meaninglessness.

For number 3 literally just look around you.

Number 4 would just refute all your posts to me so I suggest you retract that.

Trust me dude, I know nonduality better than you and this is just wrong.

I am not arguing for or against non-dualism and that is where you are making a mistake.

1. If meaning is formless it is empty. Meaning takes the form of that which we ascribe it too.
2. Yeah and I see things as distinct because of comparisons.
3. If it would refute all my posts then why not start with it?

Here is the third part of the Munchauseen Trilemma:
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Dude everything falls to the trilemma, even your argument (whatever it may be). So you're not scoring points with that one.

1. Formless doesn't mean empty. Also it doesn't take the form of what we ascribe it to. You're literally just making shit up to prop your arguments up.

2. No.

If everything falls to the trilemma then your argument does to....thus leaving it futile (which is what I as saying in other threads with the "futility of philosophy except for fun and mental exercise" remark).

If things are legitimized because of meaning and meaning is assigned to everything by everyone then everything is legitimate.

[Darkneos]

If everything falls to the trilemma then your argument does to....thus leaving it futile (which is what I as saying in other threads with the "futility of philosophy except for fun and mental exercise" remark).

Again, wrong and my explanation just went over your head.

If things are legitimized because of meaning and meaning is assigned to everything by everyone then everything is legitimate.

You'd have to show that everything has meaning assigned to it but if it did then yes everything would be meaningful.