Logic: Where Correct Thought and Correct Sense Contradict

[Eodnhoj7]

But not all actual existing forms are relative.
So not so-called 'all logic' is relative.
Therefore the rest is moot.



Will you provide actual examples?

If no, then why not?

Also, what does the word 'logic' even mean to you?


And, according to you OWN 'logic' here "eodhnoj7" what you just CLAIMED here is NOT universally true. Therefore, this means that what you say and claim here is just your OWN truth ONLY, or in other words is true to you ONLY. Which upon further examination WILL BE SEEN to be the ACTUAL UNIVERSAL Truth.



AGAIN, this is 'true' to you ONLY, but False in ACTUAL ACTUALITY.


False AGAIN. But, AGAIN, NOT to you, ALONE.

You contradict the argument I provided. My argument occurs through the senses, as it must be typed and read (physical reality is formed through it), and your abstractions do not align with it. My point stands.

OF COURSE your point stands, but to you ALONE.

Absolutely NO one here, besides you, is agreeing with you. And this is for the very simple fact that your so-called 'argument' is NOT sound and valid.

Now, you might BELIEVE that there are "others" who agree with you and/or are accepting your argument but I challenge you to name any of them.

Or, if ANY one would like to come forward and say that you agree with "eodhnoj7" here, then please feel free to come forward and make "yourself" known.

Facepalm.

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

This is the thread ^^^.

Now I will break it down.

1. Logic requires forms, it cannot exist except through forms thus it is synonymous to them.

2. Forms are relative and that which is relative is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

3. Logic is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

4. The above is the use of logic thus is true or false dependent upon context. This is the result of self-referentiality.

Part II:

1. The statement that logic is dependent upon forms is empirically verified as it occurs through the senses. We can sense that logic requires forms through the simple act of writing out a logical thought and seeing both the form of the logic and the forms the logic contains (i.e. the variables being used).

2. This is a correct observation as the progressive use of logic is the progressive observation of forms. No matter the angle of observation we cannot seperate logic from forms thus "logic=form" cannot be negated...it is unchanging. Logic being form is thus an absolute truth as, said before, it is unchanging.

Part III:

1. Correct abstractions can be relative. Correct empirical observations can be absolute. Relativity and Absolute truth are opposites thus a contradiction occurs.

[Age]

You contradict the argument I provided. My argument occurs through the senses, as it must be typed and read (physical reality is formed through it), and your abstractions do not align with it. My point stands.

OF COURSE your point stands, but to you ALONE.

Absolutely NO one here, besides you, is agreeing with you. And this is for the very simple fact that your so-called 'argument' is NOT sound and valid.

Now, you might BELIEVE that there are "others" who agree with you and/or are accepting your argument but I challenge you to name any of them.

Or, if ANY one would like to come forward and say that you agree with "eodhnoj7" here, then please feel free to come forward and make "yourself" known.

Facepalm.

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative.

But NOT ALL 'forms' ARE RELATIVE. As has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED, TO you, and SHARED, WITH you.

Now, are you going to so-call 'facepalm' AGAIN here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way what IS NOTICED here is you did NOT name just ONE person, NOR did just ONE person come forward acknowledging that 'they' agree WITH you.

Have you EVER CONSIDERED WHY this might be, EXACTLY?

If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others.

BUT, if we WERE to FOLLOW your so-called "logic" here, then 'logic' is NOT necessarily relative. That is; OF COURSE, IF ALL 'logic' is dependent upon forms, of which NOT ALL forms are relative.

HOWEVER, if you want to continue to CLAIM that YOUR "logic" is true under SOME contexts but IS FALSE under other contexts, then by all means PLEASE DO.

These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The ONLY 'thing' that is Truly SELF-CONTRADICTORY here is 'you', "eodnhoj7". But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' HAVE TO BE. That is; IF 'you' REALLY WANT 'us' to ACCEPT and AGREE WITH what you STUBBORN BELIEVE IS true here.

LOL The ONLY WAY that 'you' can MAKE YOUR BELIEF that ALL IS CONTRADICTORY is by CONTINUALLY CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here, CONTINUALLY.

Which, by the way, 'you' are DOING a GREAT and TREMENDOUS JOB OF here "eodnhoj7".

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

So, CONTRADICTORILY, 'they' are NOT CONTRADICTORY, right?

If yes, then NOT ALL 'things' ARE CONTRADICTORY.

But if no, then you ARE, once again, just CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here. And thus SAYING 'things', which ARE, literally, NOT EVEN WORTH LISTENING TO, in the beginning.

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.[/b]

This is the thread ^^^.

Now I will break it down.

1. Logic requires forms, it cannot exist except through forms thus it is synonymous to them.

This would be like SAYING and CLAIMING the human being here known as "eodnhoj7" cannot exit except through forms, thus 'it' is synonymous to 'them', and/or "eodnohj7" cannot exist except through the Universe, thus 'it' is synonymous to the Universe.

Which is true or NOT true "eodnohj7"?

2. Forms are relative and that which is relative is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

So, this sentence, AND "eodnhoj7", are true, under some certain contexts, but not true under others, right?

3. Logic is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

If you have CONCLUDED 'this', and SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'it' is so, correct?

4. The above is the use of logic thus is true or false dependent upon context.

So, in which context is the above false, and n which context is the above true?

Do you even KNOW?

This is the result of self-referentiality.

Part II:

1. The statement that logic is dependent upon forms is empirically verified as it occurs through the senses.

This is one of 'those contexts' where 'it' is false, true?

We can sense that logic requires forms through the simple act of writing out a logical thought and seeing both the form of the logic and the forms the logic contains (i.e. the variables being used).

Was 'form' used to create 'this' 'form'?

2. This is a correct observation as the progressive use of logic is the progressive observation of forms.

But 'logic' is some time false, right? While at other times 'logic' is true, correct?

No matter the angle of observation we cannot seperate logic from forms thus "logic=form" cannot be negated...it is unchanging.

Okay. Let me see if I have the 'logic' here right. The 'logic' here is that "eodnhoj7" CLAIMS that it is a complete and utter IMPOSSIBILITY to separate 'logic' FROM 'forms, which therefore MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that 'logic' equals 'form', and that 'this' can NOT be negated by ABSOLUTELY ANY one BECAUSE "eodnhoj7" SAYS SO, right?

Logic being form is thus an absolute truth as, said before, it is unchanging.

So, whenever you EXPRESS some 'thing' 'it' is ALWAYS in a context where 'logic' is true, right, but whenever you do NOT agree with the 'logic' of "another", then that is ALWAYS when the 'context' of the 'logic' is NOT true, correct?

AND, when you say, in some contexts 'logic' is true, and, in some contexts 'logic' is false, you ALWAYS KNOW which one is correct, right?

Part III:

1. Correct abstractions can be relative.

So, 'correct abstractions' can be NOT correct, in some contexts, right?

Correct empirical observations can be absolute.

But what can 'correct empirical observation' be based upon, EXACTLY, if as you have CONCLUDED and CLAIM 'logic' in some context IS FALSE.

Relativity and Absolute truth are opposites thus a contradiction occurs.

WHERE, EXACTLY?

Are you even AWARE that to MOST adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, that just because two things are opposites that this then does NOT necessarily mean that a 'contradiction' occurs?

AND, to PROVE this POINT True I will ask, 'Is there ANY here one who thinks or BELIEVES that just because 'opposition' exists, then the two 'opposing things' must then thus cause or create a 'contradiction'?

Now we WAIT, to SEE.

[Eodnhoj7]

OF COURSE your point stands, but to you ALONE.

Absolutely NO one here, besides you, is agreeing with you. And this is for the very simple fact that your so-called 'argument' is NOT sound and valid.

Now, you might BELIEVE that there are "others" who agree with you and/or are accepting your argument but I challenge you to name any of them.

Or, if ANY one would like to come forward and say that you agree with "eodhnoj7" here, then please feel free to come forward and make "yourself" known.

Facepalm.

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative.

But NOT ALL 'forms' ARE RELATIVE. As has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED, TO you, and SHARED, WITH you.

Now, are you going to so-call 'facepalm' AGAIN here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way what IS NOTICED here is you did NOT name just ONE person, NOR did just ONE person come forward acknowledging that 'they' agree WITH you.

Have you EVER CONSIDERED WHY this might be, EXACTLY?

If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others.

BUT, if we WERE to FOLLOW your so-called "logic" here, then 'logic' is NOT necessarily relative. That is; OF COURSE, IF ALL 'logic' is dependent upon forms, of which NOT ALL forms are relative.

HOWEVER, if you want to continue to CLAIM that YOUR "logic" is true under SOME contexts but IS FALSE under other contexts, then by all means PLEASE DO.

These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The ONLY 'thing' that is Truly SELF-CONTRADICTORY here is 'you', "eodnhoj7". But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' HAVE TO BE. That is; IF 'you' REALLY WANT 'us' to ACCEPT and AGREE WITH what you STUBBORN BELIEVE IS true here.

LOL The ONLY WAY that 'you' can MAKE YOUR BELIEF that ALL IS CONTRADICTORY is by CONTINUALLY CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here, CONTINUALLY.

Which, by the way, 'you' are DOING a GREAT and TREMENDOUS JOB OF here "eodnhoj7".

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

So, CONTRADICTORILY, 'they' are NOT CONTRADICTORY, right?

If yes, then NOT ALL 'things' ARE CONTRADICTORY.

But if no, then you ARE, once again, just CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here. And thus SAYING 'things', which ARE, literally, NOT EVEN WORTH LISTENING TO, in the beginning.

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.[/b]

This is the thread ^^^.

Now I will break it down.

1. Logic requires forms, it cannot exist except through forms thus it is synonymous to them.

This would be like SAYING and CLAIMING the human being here known as "eodnhoj7" cannot exit except through forms, thus 'it' is synonymous to 'them', and/or "eodnohj7" cannot exist except through the Universe, thus 'it' is synonymous to the Universe.

Which is true or NOT true "eodnohj7"?

2. Forms are relative and that which is relative is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

So, this sentence, AND "eodnhoj7", are true, under some certain contexts, but not true under others, right?

3. Logic is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

If you have CONCLUDED 'this', and SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'it' is so, correct?

4. The above is the use of logic thus is true or false dependent upon context.

So, in which context is the above false, and n which context is the above true?

Do you even KNOW?

This is the result of self-referentiality.

Part II:

1. The statement that logic is dependent upon forms is empirically verified as it occurs through the senses.

This is one of 'those contexts' where 'it' is false, true?

We can sense that logic requires forms through the simple act of writing out a logical thought and seeing both the form of the logic and the forms the logic contains (i.e. the variables being used).

Was 'form' used to create 'this' 'form'?

2. This is a correct observation as the progressive use of logic is the progressive observation of forms.

But 'logic' is some time false, right? While at other times 'logic' is true, correct?

No matter the angle of observation we cannot seperate logic from forms thus "logic=form" cannot be negated...it is unchanging.

Okay. Let me see if I have the 'logic' here right. The 'logic' here is that "eodnhoj7" CLAIMS that it is a complete and utter IMPOSSIBILITY to separate 'logic' FROM 'forms, which therefore MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that 'logic' equals 'form', and that 'this' can NOT be negated by ABSOLUTELY ANY one BECAUSE "eodnhoj7" SAYS SO, right?

Logic being form is thus an absolute truth as, said before, it is unchanging.

So, whenever you EXPRESS some 'thing' 'it' is ALWAYS in a context where 'logic' is true, right, but whenever you do NOT agree with the 'logic' of "another", then that is ALWAYS when the 'context' of the 'logic' is NOT true, correct?

AND, when you say, in some contexts 'logic' is true, and, in some contexts 'logic' is false, you ALWAYS KNOW which one is correct, right?

Part III:

1. Correct abstractions can be relative.

So, 'correct abstractions' can be NOT correct, in some contexts, right?

Correct empirical observations can be absolute.

But what can 'correct empirical observation' be based upon, EXACTLY, if as you have CONCLUDED and CLAIM 'logic' in some context IS FALSE.

Relativity and Absolute truth are opposites thus a contradiction occurs.

WHERE, EXACTLY?

Are you even AWARE that to MOST adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, that just because two things are opposites that this then does NOT necessarily mean that a 'contradiction' occurs?

AND, to PROVE this POINT True I will ask, 'Is there ANY here one who thinks or BELIEVES that just because 'opposition' exists, then the two 'opposing things' must then thus cause or create a 'contradiction'?

Now we WAIT, to SEE.

Facepalm, with the logic of the first point you made I didn't bother reading the rest. If not all forms are relative then not all forms relate and if not all forms relate then you cannot state "all is one" (as you state in other posts and threads). Relation is necessary for unity.

[Age]

Facepalm.

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative.

But NOT ALL 'forms' ARE RELATIVE. As has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED, TO you, and SHARED, WITH you.

Now, are you going to so-call 'facepalm' AGAIN here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way what IS NOTICED here is you did NOT name just ONE person, NOR did just ONE person come forward acknowledging that 'they' agree WITH you.

Have you EVER CONSIDERED WHY this might be, EXACTLY?

If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others.

BUT, if we WERE to FOLLOW your so-called "logic" here, then 'logic' is NOT necessarily relative. That is; OF COURSE, IF ALL 'logic' is dependent upon forms, of which NOT ALL forms are relative.

HOWEVER, if you want to continue to CLAIM that YOUR "logic" is true under SOME contexts but IS FALSE under other contexts, then by all means PLEASE DO.

These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The ONLY 'thing' that is Truly SELF-CONTRADICTORY here is 'you', "eodnhoj7". But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' HAVE TO BE. That is; IF 'you' REALLY WANT 'us' to ACCEPT and AGREE WITH what you STUBBORN BELIEVE IS true here.

LOL The ONLY WAY that 'you' can MAKE YOUR BELIEF that ALL IS CONTRADICTORY is by CONTINUALLY CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here, CONTINUALLY.

Which, by the way, 'you' are DOING a GREAT and TREMENDOUS JOB OF here "eodnhoj7".

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

So, CONTRADICTORILY, 'they' are NOT CONTRADICTORY, right?

If yes, then NOT ALL 'things' ARE CONTRADICTORY.

But if no, then you ARE, once again, just CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here. And thus SAYING 'things', which ARE, literally, NOT EVEN WORTH LISTENING TO, in the beginning.

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.[/b]

This is the thread ^^^.

Now I will break it down.

1. Logic requires forms, it cannot exist except through forms thus it is synonymous to them.

This would be like SAYING and CLAIMING the human being here known as "eodnhoj7" cannot exit except through forms, thus 'it' is synonymous to 'them', and/or "eodnohj7" cannot exist except through the Universe, thus 'it' is synonymous to the Universe.

Which is true or NOT true "eodnohj7"?

2. Forms are relative and that which is relative is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

So, this sentence, AND "eodnhoj7", are true, under some certain contexts, but not true under others, right?

3. Logic is true under certain contexts but not true under others.

If you have CONCLUDED 'this', and SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'it' is so, correct?

4. The above is the use of logic thus is true or false dependent upon context.

So, in which context is the above false, and n which context is the above true?

Do you even KNOW?

This is the result of self-referentiality.

Part II:

1. The statement that logic is dependent upon forms is empirically verified as it occurs through the senses.

This is one of 'those contexts' where 'it' is false, true?

We can sense that logic requires forms through the simple act of writing out a logical thought and seeing both the form of the logic and the forms the logic contains (i.e. the variables being used).

Was 'form' used to create 'this' 'form'?

2. This is a correct observation as the progressive use of logic is the progressive observation of forms.

But 'logic' is some time false, right? While at other times 'logic' is true, correct?

No matter the angle of observation we cannot seperate logic from forms thus "logic=form" cannot be negated...it is unchanging.

Okay. Let me see if I have the 'logic' here right. The 'logic' here is that "eodnhoj7" CLAIMS that it is a complete and utter IMPOSSIBILITY to separate 'logic' FROM 'forms, which therefore MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that 'logic' equals 'form', and that 'this' can NOT be negated by ABSOLUTELY ANY one BECAUSE "eodnhoj7" SAYS SO, right?

Logic being form is thus an absolute truth as, said before, it is unchanging.

So, whenever you EXPRESS some 'thing' 'it' is ALWAYS in a context where 'logic' is true, right, but whenever you do NOT agree with the 'logic' of "another", then that is ALWAYS when the 'context' of the 'logic' is NOT true, correct?

AND, when you say, in some contexts 'logic' is true, and, in some contexts 'logic' is false, you ALWAYS KNOW which one is correct, right?

Part III:

1. Correct abstractions can be relative.

So, 'correct abstractions' can be NOT correct, in some contexts, right?

Correct empirical observations can be absolute.

But what can 'correct empirical observation' be based upon, EXACTLY, if as you have CONCLUDED and CLAIM 'logic' in some context IS FALSE.

Relativity and Absolute truth are opposites thus a contradiction occurs.

WHERE, EXACTLY?

Are you even AWARE that to MOST adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, that just because two things are opposites that this then does NOT necessarily mean that a 'contradiction' occurs?

AND, to PROVE this POINT True I will ask, 'Is there ANY here one who thinks or BELIEVES that just because 'opposition' exists, then the two 'opposing things' must then thus cause or create a 'contradiction'?

Now we WAIT, to SEE.

Facepalm, with the logic of the first point you made I didn't bother reading the rest.

Okay. you then now OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET AWARE that we are WAITING, to SEE, if absolutely ANY one “ELSE’ agrees with you here.

Just so you become informed as of yet NO one has.

If not all forms are relative then not all forms relate and if not all forms relate then you cannot state "all is one"

But I have ALREADY stated this.

And, from my perspective, the form of 'ALL is One', 'ALL-THERE-IS', 'Everything' or just the Universe, Itself, is of a form of which there is, literally, :absolutely NOTHING: to relate to. Unless, OF COURSE, one just wants to relate 'It' to the concept of 'absolutely NOTHING', itself.

(as you state in other posts and threads).

So, if I have stated 'this' ALREADY, then WHY did you say above that I cannot state 'this'?

Relation is necessary for unity.

'Relation' is ONLY ’necessary’ for the CONCEPTUAL ’separation', which is just IMAGINED, or 'ILLUSIONED to exist' as “dontaskme” might say and call 'it'.

[Eodnhoj7]

But NOT ALL 'forms' ARE RELATIVE. As has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED, TO you, and SHARED, WITH you.

Now, are you going to so-call 'facepalm' AGAIN here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

By the way what IS NOTICED here is you did NOT name just ONE person, NOR did just ONE person come forward acknowledging that 'they' agree WITH you.

Have you EVER CONSIDERED WHY this might be, EXACTLY?



BUT, if we WERE to FOLLOW your so-called "logic" here, then 'logic' is NOT necessarily relative. That is; OF COURSE, IF ALL 'logic' is dependent upon forms, of which NOT ALL forms are relative.

HOWEVER, if you want to continue to CLAIM that YOUR "logic" is true under SOME contexts but IS FALSE under other contexts, then by all means PLEASE DO.



The ONLY 'thing' that is Truly SELF-CONTRADICTORY here is 'you', "eodnhoj7". But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' HAVE TO BE. That is; IF 'you' REALLY WANT 'us' to ACCEPT and AGREE WITH what you STUBBORN BELIEVE IS true here.

LOL The ONLY WAY that 'you' can MAKE YOUR BELIEF that ALL IS CONTRADICTORY is by CONTINUALLY CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here, CONTINUALLY.

Which, by the way, 'you' are DOING a GREAT and TREMENDOUS JOB OF here "eodnhoj7".



So, CONTRADICTORILY, 'they' are NOT CONTRADICTORY, right?

If yes, then NOT ALL 'things' ARE CONTRADICTORY.

But if no, then you ARE, once again, just CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self' here. And thus SAYING 'things', which ARE, literally, NOT EVEN WORTH LISTENING TO, in the beginning.



This would be like SAYING and CLAIMING the human being here known as "eodnhoj7" cannot exit except through forms, thus 'it' is synonymous to 'them', and/or "eodnohj7" cannot exist except through the Universe, thus 'it' is synonymous to the Universe.

Which is true or NOT true "eodnohj7"?


So, this sentence, AND "eodnhoj7", are true, under some certain contexts, but not true under others, right?


If you have CONCLUDED 'this', and SAY and BELIEVE so, then 'it' is so, correct?


So, in which context is the above false, and n which context is the above true?

Do you even KNOW?



This is one of 'those contexts' where 'it' is false, true?


Was 'form' used to create 'this' 'form'?


But 'logic' is some time false, right? While at other times 'logic' is true, correct?



Okay. Let me see if I have the 'logic' here right. The 'logic' here is that "eodnhoj7" CLAIMS that it is a complete and utter IMPOSSIBILITY to separate 'logic' FROM 'forms, which therefore MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, that 'logic' equals 'form', and that 'this' can NOT be negated by ABSOLUTELY ANY one BECAUSE "eodnhoj7" SAYS SO, right?



So, whenever you EXPRESS some 'thing' 'it' is ALWAYS in a context where 'logic' is true, right, but whenever you do NOT agree with the 'logic' of "another", then that is ALWAYS when the 'context' of the 'logic' is NOT true, correct?

AND, when you say, in some contexts 'logic' is true, and, in some contexts 'logic' is false, you ALWAYS KNOW which one is correct, right?


So, 'correct abstractions' can be NOT correct, in some contexts, right?



But what can 'correct empirical observation' be based upon, EXACTLY, if as you have CONCLUDED and CLAIM 'logic' in some context IS FALSE.



WHERE, EXACTLY?

Are you even AWARE that to MOST adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, that just because two things are opposites that this then does NOT necessarily mean that a 'contradiction' occurs?

AND, to PROVE this POINT True I will ask, 'Is there ANY here one who thinks or BELIEVES that just because 'opposition' exists, then the two 'opposing things' must then thus cause or create a 'contradiction'?

Now we WAIT, to SEE.

Facepalm, with the logic of the first point you made I didn't bother reading the rest.

Okay. you then now OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET AWARE that we are WAITING, to SEE, if absolutely ANY one “ELSE’ agrees with you here.

Just so you become informed as of yet NO one has.

If not all forms are relative then not all forms relate and if not all forms relate then you cannot state "all is one"

But I have ALREADY stated this.

And, from my perspective, the form of 'ALL is One', 'ALL-THERE-IS', 'Everything' or just the Universe, Itself, is of a form of which there is, literally, :absolutely NOTHING: to relate to. Unless, OF COURSE, one just wants to relate 'It' to the concept of 'absolutely NOTHING', itself.

(as you state in other posts and threads).

So, if I have stated 'this' ALREADY, then WHY did you say above that I cannot state 'this'?

Relation is necessary for unity.

'Relation' is ONLY ’necessary’ for the CONCEPTUAL ’separation', which is just IMAGINED, or 'ILLUSIONED to exist' as “dontaskme” might say and call 'it'.

If everything is one, and this oneness is a thing, what is the form of this thing (as a thing is a distinction and a distinction is a form)?

If this 'oneness' is not a thing then how can you state I am wrong that it is nothing?

If all is one then the "concept of seperation" is part of the one thus making it true.

[Age]

Facepalm, with the logic of the first point you made I didn't bother reading the rest.

Okay. you then now OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET AWARE that we are WAITING, to SEE, if absolutely ANY one “ELSE’ agrees with you here.

Just so you become informed as of yet NO one has.

If not all forms are relative then not all forms relate and if not all forms relate then you cannot state "all is one"

But I have ALREADY stated this.

And, from my perspective, the form of 'ALL is One', 'ALL-THERE-IS', 'Everything' or just the Universe, Itself, is of a form of which there is, literally, :absolutely NOTHING: to relate to. Unless, OF COURSE, one just wants to relate 'It' to the concept of 'absolutely NOTHING', itself.

(as you state in other posts and threads).

So, if I have stated 'this' ALREADY, then WHY did you say above that I cannot state 'this'?

Relation is necessary for unity.

'Relation' is ONLY ’necessary’ for the CONCEPTUAL ’separation', which is just IMAGINED, or 'ILLUSIONED to exist' as “dontaskme” might say and call 'it'.

If everything is one, and this oneness is a thing, what is the form of this thing (as a thing is a distinction and a distinction is a form)?

Are you even aware of what the 'everything' word means and refers to, exactly?

If yes, then what does the 'everything' word mean and refer to, exactly?

If this 'oneness' is not a thing then how can you state I am wrong that it is nothing?

Why would you conclude that a 'thing' might not be a 'thing'?

If all is one then the "concept of seperation" is part of the one thus making it true.

What does the 'it' word here refer to, exactly?

[Eodnhoj7]

Okay. you then now OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET AWARE that we are WAITING, to SEE, if absolutely ANY one “ELSE’ agrees with you here.

Just so you become informed as of yet NO one has.



But I have ALREADY stated this.

And, from my perspective, the form of 'ALL is One', 'ALL-THERE-IS', 'Everything' or just the Universe, Itself, is of a form of which there is, literally, :absolutely NOTHING: to relate to. Unless, OF COURSE, one just wants to relate 'It' to the concept of 'absolutely NOTHING', itself.


So, if I have stated 'this' ALREADY, then WHY did you say above that I cannot state 'this'?



'Relation' is ONLY ’necessary’ for the CONCEPTUAL ’separation', which is just IMAGINED, or 'ILLUSIONED to exist' as “dontaskme” might say and call 'it'.

If everything is one, and this oneness is a thing, what is the form of this thing (as a thing is a distinction and a distinction is a form)?

Are you even aware of what the 'everything' word means and refers to, exactly?

If yes, then what does the 'everything' word mean and refer to, exactly?

If this 'oneness' is not a thing then how can you state I am wrong that it is nothing?

Why would you conclude that a 'thing' might not be a 'thing'?

If all is one then the "concept of seperation" is part of the one thus making it true.

What does the 'it' word here refer to, exactly?

1. The word "everything" is empty.
2. If everything is one all dualisms merge.
3. The concept of separation.

[Age]

If everything is one, and this oneness is a thing, what is the form of this thing (as a thing is a distinction and a distinction is a form)?

Are you even aware of what the 'everything' word means and refers to, exactly?

If yes, then what does the 'everything' word mean and refer to, exactly?

If this 'oneness' is not a thing then how can you state I am wrong that it is nothing?

Why would you conclude that a 'thing' might not be a 'thing'?

If all is one then the "concept of seperation" is part of the one thus making it true.

What does the 'it' word here refer to, exactly?

1. The word "everything" is empty.
2. If everything is one all dualisms merge.
3. The concept of separation.

Did ANY one CLAIM that the 'concept of separation' was NOT a part of the 'one'?

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you even aware of what the 'everything' word means and refers to, exactly?

If yes, then what does the 'everything' word mean and refer to, exactly?


Why would you conclude that a 'thing' might not be a 'thing'?


What does the 'it' word here refer to, exactly?

1. The word "everything" is empty.
2. If everything is one all dualisms merge.
3. The concept of separation.

Did ANY one CLAIM that the 'concept of separation' was NOT a part of the 'one'?

Does it matter? If the concept of seperation was part of the one then the concept of multiplicity is part of the one as well. Under these terms the concept of 'not-one' is part of the one and a contradiction results as it contains its own negation.

[Age]

1. The word "everything" is empty.
2. If everything is one all dualisms merge.
3. The concept of separation.

Did ANY one CLAIM that the 'concept of separation' was NOT a part of the 'one'?

Does it matter?

We might NOT KNOW UNTIL you ANSWER the QUESTION.

If the concept of seperation was part of the one then the concept of multiplicity is part of the one as well.

So what?

And, does 'this' matter?

Under these terms the concept of 'not-one' is part of the one and a contradiction results as it contains its own negation.

LOL 'these terms'. WHOSE 'terms' ARE THOSE?

Are 'they', ONCE AGAIN, YOUR 'terms' ALONE?

[Eodnhoj7]

Did ANY one CLAIM that the 'concept of separation' was NOT a part of the 'one'?

Does it matter?

We might NOT KNOW UNTIL you ANSWER the QUESTION.

If the concept of seperation was part of the one then the concept of multiplicity is part of the one as well.

So what?

And, does 'this' matter?

Under these terms the concept of 'not-one' is part of the one and a contradiction results as it contains its own negation.

LOL 'these terms'. WHOSE 'terms' ARE THOSE?

Are 'they', ONCE AGAIN, YOUR 'terms' ALONE?

Are these questions really yours?

Do they matter? If so, why?

[Age]

Does it matter?

We might NOT KNOW UNTIL you ANSWER the QUESTION.

If the concept of seperation was part of the one then the concept of multiplicity is part of the one as well.

So what?

And, does 'this' matter?

Under these terms the concept of 'not-one' is part of the one and a contradiction results as it contains its own negation.

LOL 'these terms'. WHOSE 'terms' ARE THOSE?

Are 'they', ONCE AGAIN, YOUR 'terms' ALONE?

Are these questions really yours?

Do they matter? If so, why?

WHY do you just NOT ANSWER the QUESTIONS I ASK?

you come here STARTING threads, while CLAIMING 'things', but then appear to COWER and HIDE just WHEN CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED over YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS.

What do you MEAN by, 'really yours'? WHO ELSE could 'they' BE?

Does 'what' matter? The QUESTIONS, or the ANSWERS? Or, some 'thing' ELSE?

ANSWER 'this', THEN I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT 'WHY'.

[Eodnhoj7]

We might NOT KNOW UNTIL you ANSWER the QUESTION.


So what?

And, does 'this' matter?


LOL 'these terms'. WHOSE 'terms' ARE THOSE?

Are 'they', ONCE AGAIN, YOUR 'terms' ALONE?

Are these questions really yours?

Do they matter? If so, why?

WHY do you just NOT ANSWER the QUESTIONS I ASK?

you come here STARTING threads, while CLAIMING 'things', but then appear to COWER and HIDE just WHEN CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED over YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS.

What do you MEAN by, 'really yours'? WHO ELSE could 'they' BE?

Does 'what' matter? The QUESTIONS, or the ANSWERS? Or, some 'thing' ELSE?

ANSWER 'this', THEN I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT 'WHY'.

1. Why do you demand answers when they have been given?

2. Why do you not start your own thread to share your views with others if you are so certain you know things? Are you afraid of criticism?

3. How do you know your questions are not out of context?

[Age]

Are these questions really yours?

Do they matter? If so, why?

WHY do you just NOT ANSWER the QUESTIONS I ASK?

you come here STARTING threads, while CLAIMING 'things', but then appear to COWER and HIDE just WHEN CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED over YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS.

What do you MEAN by, 'really yours'? WHO ELSE could 'they' BE?

Does 'what' matter? The QUESTIONS, or the ANSWERS? Or, some 'thing' ELSE?

ANSWER 'this', THEN I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT 'WHY'.

1. Why do you demand answers when they have been given?

LOL
LOL
LOL

I do NOT 'demand' ANY 'thing'.

I JUST ASK, and then WAIT.

Also, what you call 'answers given', are usually just 'responses given', while the ACTUAL QUESTION is NEGLECTED.

2. Why do you not start your own thread to share your views with others if you are so certain you know things? Are you afraid of criticism?

Have you SEEN the way 'you', adult human beings, TALK TO "each other", especially in forums, as well as over the last few millenia?

REALLY NOT MUCH 'GOOD' AT ALL has been ACTUALLY ACHIEVED.

If I was so-called 'afraid of criticism', then I would NOT have SHARED MY CERTAIN VIEWS which ARE OPPOSING of YOUR VIEWS here.

3. How do you know your questions are not out of context?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

[Eodnhoj7]

WHY do you just NOT ANSWER the QUESTIONS I ASK?

you come here STARTING threads, while CLAIMING 'things', but then appear to COWER and HIDE just WHEN CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED over YOUR WORDS and CLAIMS.

What do you MEAN by, 'really yours'? WHO ELSE could 'they' BE?

Does 'what' matter? The QUESTIONS, or the ANSWERS? Or, some 'thing' ELSE?

ANSWER 'this', THEN I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT 'WHY'.

1. Why do you demand answers when they have been given?

LOL
LOL
LOL

I do NOT 'demand' ANY 'thing'.

I JUST ASK, and then WAIT.

Also, what you call 'answers given', are usually just 'responses given', while the ACTUAL QUESTION is NEGLECTED.

2. Why do you not start your own thread to share your views with others if you are so certain you know things? Are you afraid of criticism?

Have you SEEN the way 'you', adult human beings, TALK TO "each other", especially in forums, as well as over the last few millenia?

REALLY NOT MUCH 'GOOD' AT ALL has been ACTUALLY ACHIEVED.

If I was so-called 'afraid of criticism', then I would NOT have SHARED MY CERTAIN VIEWS which ARE OPPOSING of YOUR VIEWS here.

3. How do you know your questions are not out of context?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

1. Or you do not understand your own question....

2. So you are afraid of criticism. If not much good at all has been achieved in discussions on forums then you are contradicting your perspective if you continue discussing things.

3. And "what" means?