Oh yeah, and since I’m such an idiot James, you do realize the female blackmail system affects male cognition into patterns called synthetic sophistication algorithms…
Everyone but me on these boards…
Use your analytic mind to comprehend that!
No. It merely means more chaos.
That kind of depends on who is doing the blackmailing, doesn’t it?
A woman cannot deny me what I don’t desire.
You either for that matter, but such is up to you.
It means absolute nothingness…
Lack of stratification of my being, leaves only me…
Lack of stratification in my being doesn’t even leave a me…
Well, asexuals also have a bone on sexual politics of the other 99.99999 percent of the population.
As I always say to people, omission determines an asshole as much as aggression … You’ve taken the omission path… Under the auspices of changed mindset over time having matured …
So to you everyone is either a fucker or an asshole.
…Interesting mindset.
I’m not talking about sexual abstinence, I’m talking about omission … People play game after psychological game, but we all know sexual politics is culprit number one on this planet… The female blackmail system is designed to ostracize the simple fact that when you add up all the shit between the genders, females actually abuse males more than males abuse females, the facts back it up. This excuses neither male nor female behavior.
I agree that affectance is essentially what being is btw… Different objects in motion… The question here James is whether there is or is also a unified field which renders objects a contradiction???
I’m curious of your thoughts to that regard.
I’ll play the role of discussion facilitator here since were all in agreement except me that I’m a worthless fucktard trol …
If there is a unified field, then there can’t be definition…
Thus, there is no unified field …
Discuss…
Again … another definition that has been overlooked.
A “unified field” refers to an ontology that uses a single field to construct all behaviors. All other fields within a unified field theory are sequential, aberrant, or emergent fields of that one, named separately merely to distinguish a nuance (such as “electric” field, “magnetic field”, and “gravity field” being the various results of the underlying affectance field being in specific states). That single field, “affectance” unifies the other named states into a single coherent understanding.
I don’t think of you in that way, Ecmandu.
Dasein equals being there–isness. Conflicts come from becoming and belonging, not from isness. Conflicts arise from ego interpretations of being, not from being itself.
Single means single, “other things coming from” does not equal single … You’re simply stating that single is not single in the context of “unified field”. Sorry, couldn’t find italics, so I just used quotes…
We agree the point of this thread is discussing definition, we also agree that one aspect of discussing definition is a lack of heterogeneity, or positively, homogeneity. If a field is unified, which implies homogeneity, then something else cannot come from it.
Your logic doesn’t work James, your redefining unified in a way that it’s oppositionally defined!
Duplicate post
I remember the good old days, when James was Ecumandu’s role-model that he PM’d constantly, asking him to come and defend him in various arguments.
If only there were days I could remember where Uccisore didn’t use hyperbole and misrepresentation!
As I originally stated in the OP, if you want to know if you are dealing with an analytical mind, merely discuss definitions.
Many apples stem from a single tree, Eccy.
And we’ve been discussing definition itself in that context. Definition very much is like affectance, I think you’d do well to understand this if it’s not already obvious from stating it.
The tree of life metaphor being used here doesn’t address the basic fact that an apple is not a tree. There is heterogeneity here. Unified field means homogeneity, non unified field means heterogeneity.
Heterogeneity is what we see, and must necessarily see to distinguish, in order to be.
Homogeneity is nothingness, lack of existence…
For example, if everyone is exactly the same, then there is only one person, everyone = 1
If we had a TRUE unified theory (non contradictory to its definition - homogeneity of all), everything would be equal to everything else with no asymmetry - nothing at all.
An apple stems from a tree, just as a magnetic field stems from an affectance field. No one ever said that they are identically the same. One is a more restricted subset or specific arrangement of the other. A statue is made of clay, but a statue is not identical to clay.
No. it does not. You are just imagining, supposing that is what it means. “UniFIED” means that many were brought into one, coherently assembled, “united”.
And note that it is the THEORY that is unified, not necessarily the physical substances. Affectance allows for all of the relevant theories to unite via a single affectance field (and also for all of the fields of science to unite for the same reason).
On a separate note from a recent debate:
All kinds of social magic stems from playing with definitions from a position of the authority to arbitrarily dictate.
In mathematics, 0.999… is declared to be defined as equal to 1.0, despite a variety of logical reasons why it isn’t really true, just like the pig to fish transmutation.
It is merely connivery.
You can call any piece of animal constructed clay that has been dried a statue.
That’s the definition of a statue.
It’s not just clay that comprises a statue, but the maker and it’s properties.
Unification theories are equalities.
1=1 is a unification theory.
It defies your definition “from one to many”
What about “a couple” and “two”
They equal each other - that is a unified theory.
The questions we have about definition are identity and plurality, in order to be distinct from everything else, it needs to be itself.
The issue of many coming from one is not innate, in fact, contradictory, to the process of equality of formulations - which is what a unified theory is.
You are merely proving the validity of the OP.
Ecmandu,
If there are ten pies on a table and they are exactly the same (which might still be impossible), does that exclude the fact that there are ten pies on the table simply because they are exactly the same?
Ten pies remain to be 10 pies.
The word every suggests more than one - more than one individual, more than one tree, more than one post, et cetera.
Don’t discard the individual because he/she may be the exact replica of that one or that one.
It is perhaps only in English grammer that the term “everyone” is used in the singular as in diagramming a sentence but in reality that doesn’t discount the fact that everyone or every (plural) one - is still more than just one.