If it is pointless to discuss a thing and it also is pointless not to discuss it then things, such as this conversation, just happen.
You claiming your points don't end in paradox is your own assigned meaning under your logic that 'we assign meaning'. If another person, such as myself, assigns meaning to your arguments under the notion that they are paradoxical then one perspective contradicts another.
Like I said, you don’t understand paradox
How can anyone understand paradox if under non-dualism there is no paradox. You do not understand it by your own logic thus where can you point I am wrong.
As to another angle, you just are assigning your own subjective meaning to the word paradox (as according to you meaning is subjective) and as such your definition must contradict other definitions as there is no universally agreed upon subjective state (other wise it would be objective and with it meaning becomes objective).
Darkneos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:22 pm
Wrong on all points.
Again what is your point?
Baseless assertions on your part. Dually they are subjective to you if all meaning is subjective (which according to you it is).
What is the point of your question?
I’ll repeat, what’s your point?
Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.
How can anyone understand paradox if under non-dualism there is no paradox. You do not understand it by your own logic thus where can you point I am wrong.
As to another angle, you just are assigning your own subjective meaning to the word paradox (as according to you meaning is subjective) and as such your definition must contradict other definitions as there is no universally agreed upon subjective state (other wise it would be objective and with it meaning becomes objective).
Wrong again.
That is your own subjective state if meaning is subjective (according to you).
How can anyone understand paradox if under non-dualism there is no paradox. You do not understand it by your own logic thus where can you point I am wrong.
As to another angle, you just are assigning your own subjective meaning to the word paradox (as according to you meaning is subjective) and as such your definition must contradict other definitions as there is no universally agreed upon subjective state (other wise it would be objective and with it meaning becomes objective).
Wrong again.
That is your own subjective state if meaning is subjective (according to you).
If there is only one thing then you cannot differentiate between what I state and what you state.
Wrong AGAIN. The words that are stated under the label "eodnhoj7" here can be and are being very easily differentiated from the words stated under the label "age" here.
Then if you can differentiate then things are not one as the differentiation necessitates difference and with difference comes multiplicity.
But I have NEVER said NOR stated that 'things' are one. So, WHY SAY and STATE what you did here?
You are not even using logic, just mindless assertions stating "You are wrong, I am right".
But here, 'you are right, and we are wrong' correct "eodhnoj7"?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:39 pm
1. Unity requires an absence of distinctions between things otherwise if there where distinctions they would not be unified but rather standing apart.
So, to you, is the unity of the football team, for example, not made up of the distinct players within the team but rather by just one 'thing: alone, right?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:39 pm
2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?
'Everything', for one word.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:39 pm
3. If I look at my hand then look at the table and observe both standing apart from the other then there is an opposition and this opposition is a contradiction.
Really?
If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?
1. If things are relative then everything everyone states is right and wrong under the totality of contexts.
2. The fact that the football team is an observation of multiple distinct players is an observation of multiplicity. To observe a team is to observe multiplicity.
3. And how does everything appear?
4. Why not?
'We' WAIT, UNTIL you ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.
Wrong AGAIN. The words that are stated under the label "eodnhoj7" here can be and are being very easily differentiated from the words stated under the label "age" here.
Then if you can differentiate then things are not one as the differentiation necessitates difference and with difference comes multiplicity.
But I have NEVER said NOR stated that 'things' are one. So, WHY SAY and STATE what you did here?
So if things are not one then there is multiplicity?
But here, 'you are right, and we are wrong' correct "eodhnoj7"?
So, to you, is the unity of the football team, for example, not made up of the distinct players within the team but rather by just one 'thing: alone, right?
'Everything', for one word.
Really?
If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?
1. If things are relative then everything everyone states is right and wrong under the totality of contexts.
2. The fact that the football team is an observation of multiple distinct players is an observation of multiplicity. To observe a team is to observe multiplicity.
3. And how does everything appear?
4. Why not?
'We' WAIT, UNTIL you ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.