I don’t buy it.
You have to say that, though.
The crickets don’t even know what to say at this point.
edonj is an eminently US psyche. That kind of animal doesn’t occur the other side of the Atlantic.
Perfect completion is indistinct, as there is no potentiality for limits to occur, thus no limits.
Pure completion is the same as nothing.
This can be seen in relative completion, when a thing is complete in action, it ceases.
You cannot even spell a basic screenname that is spelled out in front of you, you are not in position to speak about intelligence.
But if you believe you are intelligent, then argue against the text as arguing against the writer proves nothing of your point.
Go on…
The infinite is inexhaustible, and yet completely enacted from the perspective of the eternal.
The infinite and finite are but relative distinctions.
Infinite line segments occur within a line segment thus infinity can be limited as finite while still being infinith.
and?
you’re really missing out over here, fractal boy:
If you are going to ground things in finitude and infinitude you end up with relativism.
As to the barcan…
If you are going to ground everything within fractals…then the event of distinction self-embedding is prior to a triad as the event of distinction is fractal by nature…
Why are you doing this to me? Even if I correct you, you’re still gonna say some ridiculousness in reply. You need to contact Jason and tell him to show his face with reference to a current event.
Why are you doing this to me? Even if I correct you, you’re still gonna say some ridiculousness in reply. You need to contact Jason and tell him to show his face with reference to a current event.
You posted on a thread about binary processes, seeking to refute it. And your refutations where proven inadequate.
You post about the triad, for public exposure of thought, and your argument was proven inadequate.
You see, a person who was actually interested in seeking truth would argue and counter argue their case…they would not be whining about not getting along on the internet.
The binary argument holds.
The reason, to simplify it even further:
The absence of one distinction is the presence of another different distinction, this different distinction also has a dualistic counterpart of further absence.
Thus the presence may be one distinction, the relative absences are infinite thus gradation occurs and yet the dualism of presence and absence of a distinction remains.
It’s ¬ absence. It’s difference. There’s a difference (¬ absence).
¬ should (does) ¬ always mean the same thing in logic/math…language. Using one symbol for all senses of ¬ is equivocation—why do the different (¬ lack of) senses get lumped into one word/symbol?
#petpeeve
The text is in front of you:
-A = B
-B = A,C
-C = A,B,D
…
-A results in B,C,D… as all of these things are -A.
A may be limited. What A is not is not limited other than absence.
Somebody lassoed the whirlwind.
The loop of a lasso and a whirlwind is a loop regardless of its expression.
be your username or be Niall. stop vacillating. how many others are you?
Grow up.
This forum is for dialogue and debate.
So talk about or debate the text…don’t waste your time with emotionally charged personal attacks.
The argument stands.
Sure.
But the argument is about dualism.
And I am not arguing Indian non-dualism either as in other threads I clearly state it contradicts itself.
I argued and argue the event of distinction.
You are strawmanning as arguing against Indian non-dualism is fine…but I am not arguing indian non-dualism.
I argued not non-dualism but your system being subject to it by its own design.
To be clear and distinct, I argue not a paradigm but the event of distinction. The closest paradigm you can argue against is multivalent non-dualism…but even that would fail as multivalent non-dualism is distinct from non-multivalent non-dualism.