Translucense

[Eodnhoj7]

1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.

2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.

3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.

4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries.

[Darkneos]

Short answer is no.

Also you might want to google the word contradiction before using it.

[Darkneos]

It’s odd how many baseless assertions there are in this.

Order is not a contradiction just because you say so without showing it.

Boundaries aren’t a contradiction either no matter how many times you use the word and just assert it is so.

And how can truth (a cognitive event) not be rationalized? If that’s the case how can you be sure it is true? Judging by your posts it’s a feeling and not a fact of reality. Yet when called on it you weasel out by saying logic has limits.

You want people to just accept your words without putting in the work and that doesn’t fly in philosophy. I say that having met folks like you before. Same tactics but when pressed default to the same escapes.

[Darkneos]

Also way to not know what words mean as translucent is the exact opposite of what it appears you're trying to say.

Not to mention point number 2 isn't even true. Observing change isn't observing transparency it's just something that happens. Things change into other things, there is nothing see through about being.

Point 1 directly contradicts with point 4. You can't have order be a contradiction and have there be connections. It's either one or the other.

[Eodnhoj7]

It’s odd how many baseless assertions there are in this.

Order is not a contradiction just because you say so without showing it.

Boundaries aren’t a contradiction either no matter how many times you use the word and just assert it is so.

And how can truth (a cognitive event) not be rationalized? If that’s the case how can you be sure it is true? Judging by your posts it’s a feeling and not a fact of reality. Yet when called on it you weasel out by saying logic has limits.

You want people to just accept your words without putting in the work and that doesn’t fly in philosophy. I say that having met folks like you before. Same tactics but when pressed default to the same escapes.

1. That is a baseless assertion and you introduce further baseless assertions. Or rather what is a 'based assertion' if all things are dependent upon other things unto an infinite regress which leaves everything indefinite?

2. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require distinctions. Distinctions require a 'standing apart'. A 'stand apart' is opposition. Opposition is contradiction.

2a. Example: There is a circle. There is the inner space of a circle. There is the outer space of the circle. The inner space and outer space is divided by the space which is the circle form itself; the circle is a space between spaces thus is space dividing space as space. This division is opposition, opposition is contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

Also way to not know what words mean as translucent is the exact opposite of what it appears you're trying to say.

Not to mention point number 2 isn't even true. Observing change isn't observing transparency it's just something that happens. Things change into other things, there is nothing see through about being.

Point 1 directly contradicts with point 4. You can't have order be a contradiction and have there be connections. It's either one or the other.

In the act of change a phenomenon changes into another phenomenon, this change as "one thing leading into another" is a form of transparency as we see one phenomenon through another. To look at it another way, if all things are connected then one thing leads to another and with this state of 'leading into another' we see past what we originally have seen.

[Eodnhoj7]

Short answer is no.

Also you might want to google the word contradiction before using it.

Baseless assertions.

[Eodnhoj7]

6. Order comes from spontaneity as it just appears. The impression that one thing appears from another is just an impression as one thing occurs then a different thing with this difference being a form of spontaneity. Connection between things only shows an absence of distinction between things thus leaving us only with differences and with this difference there is a spontaneity. Order requires symmetry and with symmetry an absence of distinctions. One thing leading to another thing is just continual spontaneity, due to difference, as the absence of distinctions required between symmetrical things leaves a nature of emptiness.

7. We assume order because one thing follows another yet it is this action of "one thing following another" that can be dually observed in reverse where anything can be observed as ordered if one thing follows another, yet in the nature of a raw spontaneity one thing follows another thus spontaneity can come before order. The observation of order is as spontaneous as the spontaneity that allows the one thing to be followed by another.

8. "The more things change the more they stay the same." With the continual change of a thing comes a transparency of boundaries as one thing is seen through another due to their connections. This transparency eliminates the boundaries into a conceptual unity as one distinctness leads to a further distinctness thus leaving distinctness as empty in itself as there is no comparison for it as that is all there is. In change one boundary results in another thus resulting in a transparent unity where paradoxically all things become one as they are connected by their very nature of having boundaries with one boundary being seen through another as one is connected to another. The transparency of things is the emptiness of things with this emptiness occurring by the inherent oneness things share due to an absence of distinction between boundaries (as all there is is boundaries) and one boundary leading to another thus leaving it as empty in itself.

[Darkneos]

It’s odd how many baseless assertions there are in this.

Order is not a contradiction just because you say so without showing it.

Boundaries aren’t a contradiction either no matter how many times you use the word and just assert it is so.

And how can truth (a cognitive event) not be rationalized? If that’s the case how can you be sure it is true? Judging by your posts it’s a feeling and not a fact of reality. Yet when called on it you weasel out by saying logic has limits.

You want people to just accept your words without putting in the work and that doesn’t fly in philosophy. I say that having met folks like you before. Same tactics but when pressed default to the same escapes.

1. That is a baseless assertion and you introduce further baseless assertions. Or rather what is a 'based assertion' if all things are dependent upon other things unto an infinite regress which leaves everything indefinite?

2. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require distinctions. Distinctions require a 'standing apart'. A 'stand apart' is opposition. Opposition is contradiction.

2a. Example: There is a circle. There is the inner space of a circle. There is the outer space of the circle. The inner space and outer space is divided by the space which is the circle form itself; the circle is a space between spaces thus is space dividing space as space. This division is opposition, opposition is contradiction.

Number 2 is just false. Opposition isn't contradiction. You're literally just repeating that boundaries require distinctions, which is obviously the case in nature. Everything is connected and separate. Duh.

2a nope. There is no inner space of the circle or the outer space of the circle, there is just the circle. Again you don't understand logic. The division isn't opposition.

[Darkneos]

Also way to not know what words mean as translucent is the exact opposite of what it appears you're trying to say.

Not to mention point number 2 isn't even true. Observing change isn't observing transparency it's just something that happens. Things change into other things, there is nothing see through about being.

Point 1 directly contradicts with point 4. You can't have order be a contradiction and have there be connections. It's either one or the other.

In the act of change a phenomenon changes into another phenomenon, this change as "one thing leading into another" is a form of transparency as we see one phenomenon through another. To look at it another way, if all things are connected then one thing leads to another and with this state of 'leading into another' we see past what we originally have seen.

No it's not a form of transparency. You aren't seeing on phenomenon through another, it's just changing from one thing to another. Like I said everything is connected and separate, you're just wrong here. You're not seeing through anything.

[Darkneos]

6. Order comes from spontaneity as it just appears. The impression that one thing appears from another is just an impression as one thing occurs then a different thing with this difference being a form of spontaneity. Connection between things only shows an absence of distinction between things thus leaving us only with differences and with this difference there is a spontaneity. Order requires symmetry and with symmetry an absence of distinctions. One thing leading to another thing is just continual spontaneity, due to difference, as the absence of distinctions required between symmetrical things leaves a nature of emptiness.

7. We assume order because one thing follows another yet it is this action of "one thing following another" that can be dually observed in reverse where anything can be observed as ordered if one thing follows another, yet in the nature of a raw spontaneity one thing follows another thus spontaneity can come before order. The observation of order is as spontaneous as the spontaneity that allows the one thing to be followed by another.

8. "The more things change the more they stay the same." With the continual change of a thing comes a transparency of boundaries as one thing is seen through another due to their connections. This transparency eliminates the boundaries into a conceptual unity as one distinctness leads to a further distinctness thus leaving distinctness as empty in itself as there is no comparison for it as that is all there is. In change one boundary results in another thus resulting in a transparent unity where paradoxically all things become one as they are connected by their very nature of having boundaries with one boundary being seen through another as one is connected to another. The transparency of things is the emptiness of things with this emptiness occurring by the inherent oneness things share due to an absence of distinction between boundaries (as all there is is boundaries) and one boundary leading to another thus leaving it as empty in itself.

Number 6 is just false, there are predictable laws that reality follows that form a sort of order. We can even math it out, it doesn't just appear it just is. A connection between two things is only possible due to a distinction between two things. Otherwise it would just be one thing and no connection. Also order doesn't require symmetry, this is just false too, looking at the food chain in nature for example. Again, bad logic and honestly just nonsense.

Number 7 is also wrong, there is no such thing as spontaneity. What we call that is simply the lack of information of all the factors leading up to such an event. If you had total knowledge of all factors in the universe you could predict everything with total certainty because we do live in a deterministic universe. It's not an observation of order, ORDER IS EXISTENCE.

Number 8 is still wrong. Looking at all the ages over the Earth that changed. Dinosaur type animals can't exist because the climate changed and current climate change is going to wipe us out. Change doesn't mean everything stays the same, even Buddhism knows this. Impermanence is it's foundation, or to say "you never step in the same river twice".

There is no transparency of boundaries, they do in fact exist and they form and break down all the time. It's just physics. The rest of number 8 is just wrong and flawed logic, not to mention nonsense. It falls apart because your "definition" of transparency is just wrong.

There is no absence of distinction between boundaries and I seriously suggest you consider googling contradiction before using it.

Lastly all things are not one, this PROVES you don't understand nonduality.

[Eodnhoj7]

It’s odd how many baseless assertions there are in this.

Order is not a contradiction just because you say so without showing it.

Boundaries aren’t a contradiction either no matter how many times you use the word and just assert it is so.

And how can truth (a cognitive event) not be rationalized? If that’s the case how can you be sure it is true? Judging by your posts it’s a feeling and not a fact of reality. Yet when called on it you weasel out by saying logic has limits.

You want people to just accept your words without putting in the work and that doesn’t fly in philosophy. I say that having met folks like you before. Same tactics but when pressed default to the same escapes.

1. That is a baseless assertion and you introduce further baseless assertions. Or rather what is a 'based assertion' if all things are dependent upon other things unto an infinite regress which leaves everything indefinite?

2. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require distinctions. Distinctions require a 'standing apart'. A 'stand apart' is opposition. Opposition is contradiction.

2a. Example: There is a circle. There is the inner space of a circle. There is the outer space of the circle. The inner space and outer space is divided by the space which is the circle form itself; the circle is a space between spaces thus is space dividing space as space. This division is opposition, opposition is contradiction.

Number 2 is just false. Opposition isn't contradiction. You're literally just repeating that boundaries require distinctions, which is obviously the case in nature. Everything is connected and separate. Duh.

2a nope. There is no inner space of the circle or the outer space of the circle, there is just the circle. Again you don't understand logic. The division isn't opposition.

1. Contradiction: "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another."
https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... s-wiz-serp

The seperation of things necessitates the distinctness of things with this shared nature of being distinct necessitating all things as simultaneously connected. The connection of all things requires things to work together but it is this nature of there being "things working together" (i.e. there being "things") there is a manifestation of distinction thus seperation.

3. Division: the action of separating something into parts or the process of being separated.

https://www.google.com/search?q=divisio ... s-wiz-serp

Seperation: cause to move or be apart.

https://www.google.com/search?q=separat ... s-wiz-serp

[Eodnhoj7]

Also way to not know what words mean as translucent is the exact opposite of what it appears you're trying to say.

Not to mention point number 2 isn't even true. Observing change isn't observing transparency it's just something that happens. Things change into other things, there is nothing see through about being.

Point 1 directly contradicts with point 4. You can't have order be a contradiction and have there be connections. It's either one or the other.

In the act of change a phenomenon changes into another phenomenon, this change as "one thing leading into another" is a form of transparency as we see one phenomenon through another. To look at it another way, if all things are connected then one thing leads to another and with this state of 'leading into another' we see past what we originally have seen.

No it's not a form of transparency. You aren't seeing on phenomenon through another, it's just changing from one thing to another. Like I said everything is connected and separate, you're just wrong here. You're not seeing through anything.

If everything is connected and separate then connection and separation are one and you cannot make the distinction between the two.

[Darkneos]

1. That is a baseless assertion and you introduce further baseless assertions. Or rather what is a 'based assertion' if all things are dependent upon other things unto an infinite regress which leaves everything indefinite?

2. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require distinctions. Distinctions require a 'standing apart'. A 'stand apart' is opposition. Opposition is contradiction.

2a. Example: There is a circle. There is the inner space of a circle. There is the outer space of the circle. The inner space and outer space is divided by the space which is the circle form itself; the circle is a space between spaces thus is space dividing space as space. This division is opposition, opposition is contradiction.

Number 2 is just false. Opposition isn't contradiction. You're literally just repeating that boundaries require distinctions, which is obviously the case in nature. Everything is connected and separate. Duh.

2a nope. There is no inner space of the circle or the outer space of the circle, there is just the circle. Again you don't understand logic. The division isn't opposition.

1. Contradiction: "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another."
https://www.google.com/search?q=contrad ... s-wiz-serp

The seperation of things necessitates the distinctness of things with this shared nature of being distinct necessitating all things as simultaneously connected. The connection of all things requires things to work together but it is this nature of there being "things working together" (i.e. there being "things") there is a manifestation of distinction thus seperation.

3. Division: the action of separating something into parts or the process of being separated.

https://www.google.com/search?q=divisio ... s-wiz-serp

Seperation: cause to move or be apart.

https://www.google.com/search?q=separat ... s-wiz-serp

1. I know what contradiction means and that definition still proves you wrong. Things aren't contradictions.

Here's the definition of it:

: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something


Throwing google definitions around is just embarrassing for you.

Like...I'm pretty sure you don't know what words mean or how logic works.