Universal Consciousness

[Darkneos]

1. If things are united there is no separation and separation only occurs through distinction.

2. And I argue, elsewhere, the totality is no-things. If the totality exists within a given set then there is something beyond the totality, i.e. the set it is within, thus leaving it not the totality.

3. So you view yourself as stupid?

1. Again, wrong. There is separation in unity.

2. There is nothing beyond the totality, the totality is the set.

1. And there is unity in separation if the multitude of things share the same phenomenon known as distinctness.
2. Thus the grand set is not a thing as thingness requires distinction and distinction only occurs through comparison.

1. No.

2. Stuff can exist without being a thing. Thingness doesn't require distinction though.

Again, what is the point of this?

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Again, wrong. There is separation in unity.

2. There is nothing beyond the totality, the totality is the set.

1. And there is unity in separation if the multitude of things share the same phenomenon known as distinctness.
2. Thus the grand set is not a thing as thingness requires distinction and distinction only occurs through comparison.

1. No.

2. Stuff can exist without being a thing. Thingness doesn't require distinction though.

Again, what is the point of this?

1. I will take that as me being correct if you cannot argue against my point with your logic.
2. Thing: "a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing

"Stuff" is a concept and as a concept is a thing.

[Darkneos]

1. And there is unity in separation if the multitude of things share the same phenomenon known as distinctness.
2. Thus the grand set is not a thing as thingness requires distinction and distinction only occurs through comparison.

1. No.

2. Stuff can exist without being a thing. Thingness doesn't require distinction though.

Again, what is the point of this?

1. I will take that as me being correct if you cannot argue against my point with your logic.
2. Thing: "a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing

"Stuff" is a concept and as a concept is a thing.

1. Take it however you want, explaining why not is more trouble than it's worth at this point.
2. Again picking the definition that supports you.

Concepts aren't things and yet they exist. Stuff however is a concept and a thing.

Again, what is the point of this? You're avoiding it.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. No.

2. Stuff can exist without being a thing. Thingness doesn't require distinction though.

Again, what is the point of this?

1. I will take that as me being correct if you cannot argue against my point with your logic.
2. Thing: "a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing

"Stuff" is a concept and as a concept is a thing.

1. Take it however you want, explaining why not is more trouble than it's worth at this point.
2. Again picking the definition that supports you.

Concepts aren't things and yet they exist. Stuff however is a concept and a thing.

Again, what is the point of this? You're avoiding it.

1. You provided no explanation that did not end in contradiction or paradox.

2. Definition is dependent upon context and as such the definition applies to the context provided.

3. A concept is a distinction thus a thing as evidenced by the definition of thing provided.

4. Now you are projecting as the question you ask me can be applied to you: What is the point of this?

[Darkneos]

1. I will take that as me being correct if you cannot argue against my point with your logic.
2. Thing: "a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing

"Stuff" is a concept and as a concept is a thing.

1. Take it however you want, explaining why not is more trouble than it's worth at this point.
2. Again picking the definition that supports you.

Concepts aren't things and yet they exist. Stuff however is a concept and a thing.

Again, what is the point of this? You're avoiding it.

1. You provided no explanation that did not end in contradiction or paradox.

2. Definition is dependent upon context and as such the definition applies to the context provided.

3. A concept is a distinction thus a thing as evidenced by the definition of thing provided.

4. Now you are projecting as the question you ask me can be applied to you: What is the point of this?

1. Didn't end in paradox (and again I've had to explain why and you don't or rather don't want to get it), and again the same thing applies to everything you have said. So every "criticism" you have made against me applies to you, starting with you claiming philosophy is "futile" (and yet you're doing it here).

What's your point? Because it seems like you don't have one and if that's true this was a waste of time.

[Age]

Facepalm again, and again I didn't read the rest because of your logic in the first post.

I thought you have been reading my other posts, because you have been replying to them.

If nothing and everything are not the same then not all is one as you state.

If you HAD BEEN READING ALL of what I HAVE WRITTEN, then you may have STOPPED hitting that head with that palm.

I VERY CLEARLY WROTE and SAID;
OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'.

The fact that the totality can have no comparison (otherwise it would not be the totality) necessitates it the same as nothingness for the totality would need comparison, as the act of standing apart allows for distinctions for distinctions are the act of standing apart, if it were a thing.

'This' ONLY APPLIES in that head ALONE. And this is because from within "OTHER" heads OTHER 'things' can and have been determined, and SEEN.

Maybe if you STOPPED ASSUMING and 'facepalming', and STARTED READING and LISTENING MORE, then you too will come.to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, AS WELL.

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.

[Age]

1. Unity is sameness as unity is an absence of distinctions between things.
2. The totality is formless and as formless is not recognizable as we cannot make distinctions in what is formless otherwise it would not be formless.
3. With distinctions come contradictions and with contradictions a senselessness; the dichotomy of truth and falsehood negates the unity of all things as each side is correct in their own perspective. If everyone is correct in there own perspective then anything goes.

Unity isn't sameness, this is just wrong.

Totality is not formless. Furthermore if it is not recognizable then how can you know there is even such a thing.

Contradictions don't come with distinctions, I believe I already showed this.

I can vomit out baseless stuff too but I prefer logic.

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"?

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?

2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?

'Everything', for one word.

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?

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Take it however you want, explaining why not is more trouble than it's worth at this point.
2. Again picking the definition that supports you.

Concepts aren't things and yet they exist. Stuff however is a concept and a thing.

Again, what is the point of this? You're avoiding it.

1. You provided no explanation that did not end in contradiction or paradox.

2. Definition is dependent upon context and as such the definition applies to the context provided.

3. A concept is a distinction thus a thing as evidenced by the definition of thing provided.

4. Now you are projecting as the question you ask me can be applied to you: What is the point of this?

1. Didn't end in paradox (and again I've had to explain why and you don't or rather don't want to get it), and again the same thing applies to everything you have said. So every "criticism" you have made against me applies to you, starting with you claiming philosophy is "futile" (and yet you're doing it here).

What's your point? Because it seems like you don't have one and if that's true this was a waste of time.

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

I thought you have been reading my other posts, because you have been replying to them.



If you HAD BEEN READING ALL of what I HAVE WRITTEN, then you may have STOPPED hitting that head with that palm.

I VERY CLEARLY WROTE and SAID;
OBVIOUSLY there is ONLY One 'Thing'.


'This' ONLY APPLIES in that head ALONE. And this is because from within "OTHER" heads OTHER 'things' can and have been determined, and SEEN.

Maybe if you STOPPED ASSUMING and 'facepalming', and STARTED READING and LISTENING MORE, then you too will come.to SEE and UNDERSTAND MORE, AS WELL.

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

Unity isn't sameness, this is just wrong.

Totality is not formless. Furthermore if it is not recognizable then how can you know there is even such a thing.

Contradictions don't come with distinctions, I believe I already showed this.

I can vomit out baseless stuff too but I prefer logic.

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"?

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?

2. If the totality is not formless then what is its form?

'Everything', for one word.

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?

[Darkneos]

Wrong on all points.

Again what is your point?

[Darkneos]

1. You provided no explanation that did not end in contradiction or paradox.

2. Definition is dependent upon context and as such the definition applies to the context provided.

3. A concept is a distinction thus a thing as evidenced by the definition of thing provided.

4. Now you are projecting as the question you ask me can be applied to you: What is the point of this?

1. Didn't end in paradox (and again I've had to explain why and you don't or rather don't want to get it), and again the same thing applies to everything you have said. So every "criticism" you have made against me applies to you, starting with you claiming philosophy is "futile" (and yet you're doing it here).

What's your point? Because it seems like you don't have one and if that's true this was a waste of time.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Didn't end in paradox (and again I've had to explain why and you don't or rather don't want to get it), and again the same thing applies to everything you have said. So every "criticism" you have made against me applies to you, starting with you claiming philosophy is "futile" (and yet you're doing it here).

What's your point? Because it seems like you don't have one and if that's true this was a waste of time.

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).

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

[Darkneos]

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?