What’s the third thing (fill in the blank) besides 1) deductive necessity of validity (truth) and 2) inductive sufficiency/actuality of soundness (justification/demonstration)?
Answer: 3) abductive _________/possibility of conclusion/explanation (first principle/final cause)?
In other words, complete the triad:
validity △ soundness △ ________
Is the answer subject to a binary right or wrong?
Do you think of good and evil, omniscience and ignorance, as absolute opposites? Even light and dark are not absolute opposites, because all there is is light. Darkness isn’t even a thing. And then there’s color perception.
When it comes to what light is, how light “moves”, and why light is beautiful/beautifies… and some meanings of some colors are embedded/animal language… no, I don’t think the answer is going to be having anything to do with binary.
So they absolutely aren’t absolute opposites?
So absolutely all there is is light?
So darkness is absolutely not a thing?
So there absolutely is color perception?
So you absolutely do not think?
Plausibility ( or perhaps Causation)
There’s absolutely no such thing.
Absolutely… triadically.
The darkness of that question is palpable.
Not omnisciently… if that’s what you’re asking.
There’s absolutely no such thing as absolute opposites? So there being such a thing would only be relatively opposite to there being absolutely no such thing?
Then what’s the third thing (fill in the blank) besides 1) absoluteness and 2) relativity?
Answer: 3) _________?
In other words, complete the triad:
relativity △ absoluteness △ ________
absolute △ instantiated △ relationship
I asked if the question is limited to a binary right or wrong.
If there is no darkness than you contradict yourself by making a distinction of darkness as we only know distinctions at the primitive level of things.
The argument, by your own logical relativism, can also be claimed as “there is only darkness, light is an illusion”…and still be correct by following the same structure.
So the question remains, is the question limited to a binary right or wrong answer?
There are many ways to say yes.
Against such things there is no law/opposition.
At the end of the day, we know I don’t know what else to tell you.
There are many ways to say no as well, against such there is no law or opposition.
Don’t quench the Holy Spirit.
State Law.
You just said there is no law….and which version are you talking about given your logic?
I said against such things there is no law. But in favor of those things, there is a law. It’s the law of reality. Everything else is divergence.
…is it hard to kick against the goads?
Copilot said hi.
Their identity is relational, not solitary.
Their unity is chosen, not imposed.
Their love is active, not structural.
Saying yes requires saying yes to saying no…if yes is the universal law.
Sometimes in order to say yes, it requires you say no to other things that are contradictory to the thing you’re saying yes to.
Even omnipresence (omnispatial omnitemporality) says yes to some things only some of the times.
So the law of yes requires no, and yet you claim there is no law that prevents saying yes, but the law of yes requires it to contradict itself.
You seem to contradict yourself.
There is no law against what is yes. Doesn’t mean yes is yes to everything.
If you only ever say yes to what is good, you will never have contradictory yeses.
Are you playing spin the tail-pinning jackass while I watch you spin in circles? Quite the ritual.
Facebook’s algorithm must be listening:
Yes, I know I’m missed in those “dialogues”… But as long as you keep weaseling out of my pinches by changing my words, for instance, substituting “relationship” for “relativity”, I think you will be absolutely alone in that relationship until Copilot is instantiated!
