Binary Processes Require and Produce Non-Binary Distinctions
A ↔ -A
-A = B
B ↔ -B
-B = C
C ↔ -C
-C = D
…
A ↔ ((-A,-B,-C,…)=(B,C,D,…))
***All variables = ●
● ↔ -●
By degree the presence of one distinction is conditional on all others that are not it thus resulting in a dichtomy.
What binary processes are required to produce the One and only indistinct Universe, exactly?
If the universe is indistinct, and indistinct is distinct from distinct, then in claiming the universe is indistinct you reveal it as a distinction.
Thus you contradict yourself.
So the question is:
Is ‘indistinct’ distinct from ‘distinction’?
Okay. But who cares?
Have you forgotten that ‘you’ are the one who claims that there HAS TO BE contradictions, and that ‘you’ HAVE TO contradict “yourself”?
I will allow ‘you’ to answer that question which you claim IS ‘the question’.
So, is ‘indistinct’ distinct from ‘distinction’, to you, “eodnhoj7”? And, why, exactly?
See how I asked “eodnhoj7”
And, once more, absolutely NOTHING is provided, except, of course, some truly nonsensical questions about ‘distinction’.
What binary processes are required to produce the Universe “eodnhoj7”?
Either you know, and thus you inform us, or you do not know, and you just say and write, “I don’t know”. How hard can this be?
that right there is the crux of the biscuit
For someone who pretends not to care you seem more than willing to comment.
Did applying the number 3 to a loop…become boring?
Don’t waste your time with fifty posts and fifty questions…I don’t bother reading your work past the first or second sentence. Or bother, it is your life.
So to get to the point.
You talk about the universe.
Okay.
Define it without using distinctions.
What does “universe” mean?
If you cannot define it, then by your own arguments you are using an empty term and your assertions are empty.
You can’t have unity without distinction, you can’t have distinction without unity, and you can have neither without completion.
You can’t have unity without distinction, you can’t have distinction without unity, and you can have neither without completion.
Completion is distinct from incomplete.
You assume completion as foundational; inverse incomplete is the same.
As to the rest:
Unity is distinct from multiplicity.
Distinction is distinct from distinction by indistinction.
Distinction is distinct from unity and multiplicity as transcendent.
Distinction occurs through unity and multiplicity by degree of mediation.
just because you’re in a state of completion doesn’t mean it is distinct from full completion
… except insofar as you are distinct from …original intelligence (you are subsumed within and get your being/moving/life from the original)
multiplicity is another word for distinction
unity △ distinction △ completion
they do not differ in degree of mediation
You said:
“You can’t have unity without distinction, you can’t have distinction without unity, and you can have neither without completion.”
Not “state” or “full”.
Don’t move the goalposts.
Okay. Thank you for expressing this, this explains quite a bit.
Do you want me to define ‘it’ here, or the ‘Universe’, exactly?
if you want me to define the Universe exactly, then the Universe is defined as Everything; All there is; Totality. Which, by the way, also does not have distinctions, as they are ALL things combined as One. Like with every one, as One. Or, literally, the joining of ‘every’ and ‘thing’ together as One becomes ‘Everything’ instead, and of which there is NO distinction, obviously.
Clearly there are distinctions among every thing, or all things, but when there is only One Thing, like, for example, Everything; Totality, there is NO distinction.
Everything; All there is; Totality.
Okay.
Okay.
You said:
“if you want me to define the Universe exactly, then the Universe is defined as Everything; All there is; Totality. Which, by the way, also does not have distinctions, as they are ALL things combined as One.”
So effectively the totality, without contrast is the same as nothing as there is no contrast for it to be distinct as there is nothing by which it can co compare.
Correct?
No.
ALL concepts of ‘nothing’ exist in the One and only eternal and infinite Universe.
There is no such thing as ‘just nothing’ and never could have been nor could be.
By the way, most people can construct a concept of ‘totality without contrast’ or even a concept of ‘nothing without contrast’ but considering the obvious fact of there being a person constructing either concept, the fact that some thing is considering ‘nothing without contrast’ is an oxymoron.
I am not sure why ‘you’ are saying and claiming ‘… is the same as nothing as there is no contrast for it to be distinct’, exactly?
You say “no” but by your logic my argument is contained by the universe…if everything is one.
Anyhow…
Then you cannot say the universe exists either, as existence requires contrast from non-existence, and the term existence means nothing if there is no contrast, as it is indistinct.
The moment you say the universe exists you make the universe distinct from non-existence…thus the universe is distinct by existing.
As such it is subject to distinction…and is not the be all end all you make it to be.
But you will differ, so you can be distinct, and just prove the point further.
So go on with your loop.
Why…because I finally said the thing that obliterates everything you’ve been saying (which is intentional goofball nonsense)? It’s not moving the goal posts. I’ve been saying the same thing the entire time. In 5000 different ways.
I don’t think he’s even read the time series work.
Once more, you appear to have misconstrued or just missed what was meant.
Once again, this one’s absolute belief keeps preventing it from seeing what the actual Truth is exactly.
Look “eodnhoj7”, you can keep believing and insisting that ‘contrast’, ‘distinction’, or even ‘contradictions’ HAVE TO EXIST for ‘you’ to be able to exist till ‘the day’ that ‘you’ do not exist anymore. However, just because you believe, absolutely, something is true NEVER MEANS that ‘it’ is actually True.
Now, because ‘you’ have been steadfast in ‘your belief/s’ here ‘I’ have not even begun to inform HOW and WHY there is A Truth in what ‘you’ believe and have been claiming here.
‘I’ have just been letting ‘you’ express and believe what you do here to show and demonstrate HOW and WHY people did not end up finding out and seeing what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly.
Again, until people ‘look at’ the Truth, alone and only, they did not start recognising and ‘seeing’ what the actual and irrefutable Truth IS, exactly.
‘I’ do not. But ‘I’ will NEVER say nor suggest that ‘you’ do not.
Is, supposedly, distinct from ‘what’, exactly?
And, WHY are ‘you’ so fixated on ‘distinction’ and ‘contrast’ for, exactly?
WHY do ‘you’ believe, absolutely, that ‘you’ nor the Universe could not exist without ‘distinction and contrast’?
‘you’ sound those people who believe, absolutely, that they and human beings could not exist without beliefs.
LOL, LOL, LOL.
‘you’ are ‘the one’ who has been ‘trying’ your absolute hardest to claim that ‘distinction’ and ‘contrast’ is the so-called ‘be all and end all’ you make out ‘it’ to be.
I have just been responding and replying to ‘your beliefs and claims’ here.
I have not been starting threads nor trying to argue nor fight for anything here. I am just pointing out the Universe is infinite and eternal, and therefore there is NOTHING beyond, above, separate, apart from, distinct, nor in contrast to.
And as things are progressing here, what the actual Truth is, exactly, people are finally coming to recognise, see, understand, and know.
This is “your logic” so far:
P1. ‘i’, “eodnhoj7”, believe that there has to be distinction and contrast otherwise nothing can exist. P2. Others cannot claim that the Universe exists infinitely and eternally because ‘my’, “eodnhoj7”, beliefs will not allow ‘me’ to see and recognise this. C. Therefore, the Universe HAS TO BE subject to distinction, and so is finite and temporal.
Once more, ‘you’ and everyone else NEEDS more than just their pre/assumptions and beliefs for things to be True and Real.
Here is another prime example of HOW and WHEN a person is holding a belief to be absolutely true that they will then “see” and “hear” things that are actually NOT True, but that they will ‘try to’ use to back up and support their currently held-onto belief. The phenomenon is also known as ‘confirmation bias’.
Coming from ‘the one’ who has written threads after threads about ‘loops’ and ‘loops’.
It’s Niall. Of course he has.