Existence within Colors

[b]Hello all,
This thread is to show the how colors can help one to understand existence. :slight_smile:
as you may know existence is composed of nothing and something…something being God’s love when nothing is evil and something being evil when nothing is God’s love- for the sake of the thread we will look at white as God’s love and black as a lack of God’s love- therefore evil… they come together to create grey (everything) which is what i call “the glue of existence” and all three combined- come together to create anything which in this case would be the potential needed for all three to come “alive”…of course keep in mind that when any one is created- so are all others…here is a simple drawing that i created…
feel free to explore this world of colors and share your comments and/or questions :slight_smile:

God bless[/b]


orange is my favorite color :slight_smile:

Refutation of ridiculous pseudo-philosophy

  1. All E is (N & S)

“as you may know existence is composed of nothing and something”

Grammar, sir. The word is ‘comprised,’ not ‘composed.’
The quantifier All is used because everything literally means every thing.

  1. (S is L) → [(N is V) & (S is V)] → (N is L)

“something being God’s love when nothing is evil and something being evil when nothing is God’s love”

‘When’ functions as a conditional.

  1. (W is L) & (B is ~L) .: V

“white as God’s love and black as a lack of God’s love- therefore evil…”

Here is his argument, if you can follow it.

P1. All E is (N & S)
P2. (S is L) → {[(N is V) & (S is V)] → (N is L)}
P3. (W is L) & (B is ~L)
.: V

Fallacy: the argument begs the question, as V is given in one of the premises and then re-stated in the conclusion.

Here is another argument in the same logical form, provided as a refutation by analogy.

P1. All apples are physical objects and things that have color. (t)
P2. Things that have color are things that exist, when physical objects are things in the world and things that have color are things in the world, when physical objects are things that exist.
P3. Desks are things that exist and ghosts are not things that exist. (t)
.: There are things in the world.

The argument is begging the question and P2 is circular reasoning. I’m sure a truth-table would yield the conclusion as a tautology.

I’m not even going to bother with the rest of his argument. First learn to construct a proper argument, then come back and reveal the nature of existence. . . . or maybe you should just stick to coloring.

-tum

I’m not to apt with arguement forms of philosophy Underground, but I’m sure this person was just sharing a rational belief about existence. Its clearly that helpthe didnt investigate much into his/her analysis about existence within colors. However he/she shared it, seems good enough to me.

I mwould like to weigh in and say that anyone trying to educate themselves should immediately induce vomiting after reading a hread like this.

Innocent? Perhaps. though realistically HTH seems like what some call “a troll”.

This is a pseudo argument about a pseudo philosophy. It performs the function of simplifying everything into a happy nutshell, eliminating the need to think about the already crazy concepts involved.

I never did like the crazy debates talking about somethings and nothings… a lot of equivocations if you ask me…

It also takes the concept of god.

“As you may know, Existence is gods love and nothing is the devils black hatred… Yarr matey…”

This is just a far out and barely meaningful assertion; it requires strain.

This is not philosophy and this is not insightful observation.

The theory itself is like saying that we exist between the cheesy evil of Parmesan mountain and the tomatoey goodness of the spaghetti God, see how it all works out?

I could draw a pretty picture, with meatballs… i like meatballs…

Do you?

Pasta be with you…

(sorry HTH, but yer off the deep end here)

Excuse me, but how can you be sure that his belief is “rational” if you are not apt with argument forms?

Wonderer, you’re hilarious.

I just noticed that I missed a bracket in P2. It should go,

{S is L} → {[(N is V) & (S is V)] → (N is L)}

Faust can certainly double-check me.

Brilliant analysis, TUM :smiley:

it is impossible to disprove my knowledge…those that think they may simply do not understand… existence is composed of something and nothing (God’s love and evil)…i have given more in-depth explanations of this within my “existence for possibilitie’s sake” and “intelligence leads to belief in higher power” threads…if you feel you do not understand my work, feel free to ask questions and i would be glad to assist your search for love and peace…(God’s love eliminates negativity and brings peace to those obsessed with nothing- only through God may you conquer nothing’s suffering- only through God may you find true happiness)

God bless

False
you may not learn without wanting to learn Wonderer
if you have any questions about my work- please feel free to ask and i will surely assist you :slight_smile:
God bless

[b]hello BaDWay2Be :slight_smile:
what makes this clear ?
feel free to ask any questions about my work…

God bless[/b]

Agreed :sunglasses: , however I should have said “sharing his belief” instead of calling his belief rational. I was just saying, because it isn’t in arguement form does not mean it should be eliminated as a topic or shared. But I do think “helpthe” should provide more concrete information about this subject instead of the flat and inane approach that he chose. Judging from another, I see he may have a history of doing this. I admit I am new to the argument forms being described :-k . For instance all of the formulas being mentioned seem like math formulas. I am however, familiar with fallacies, debating and certain argument forms in writing. When I catch on, I’ll try to post in argument form. In the meantime If I do post a topic, I hope it isnt immediately refuted or overlooked because of my ignorance on what qualifies as a philosophy. Which seems to be an argument to be debated upon and weighed out.

[b]feel free to ask any questions you may have (if you wish) :slight_smile:
i have also given extensive information on my knowledge here at ilp (which largely includes existence)…i would be glad to help anyone that would like to learn more about our existence within colors…if not, the information that i have given thus far will suffice for those that learn or know my knowledge…

God bless[/b]

Now, while I can appreciate what you are saying, I think you are mis-establishing your concepts as ‘universal’ when they should be considered more existential.

A few problems I see in your philosophy (ignoring the fallicious logical syntax used - for this I will suppose that logic is merely a model, and so cannot accurately (that is, absolutely) account for existence (reality) and so, your argument can be treated as a viable idea still):

1 & 2. That God’s love is not omni in your representational system, and therefore, your concept of ‘God’ is either not absolute (God must be absolute, infinite etc.) or simply, not correctly established (God is misrepresented in your philosophica discourse above); and that you rely on a proposed duality in existence (that of the existent existence, and of the non-existent existence or the something and the nothing).

To lack is to represent something as a ‘towards’ completion - conception of what God’s omnibenevolence would be necessary in order to understand what the ‘complete’ presence of God’s love would be like, and then to understand that there is some of this love ‘lacking’ in existence.
To lack is to assume some ‘complete’ state, a state which does not exist (or else, the lack would not exist - it is either you lack something, or you are complete). Therefore, your philosophy relies on two ideas:

  • The dichotomy of presence and absence
  • The surrender of God as an omni- being into something that itself can lack (that its love is not absolute means that God’s love at some point of its existence, some essence of it, is not absolute nor complete).

So, can this issue be resolved and your philosophy still remain intact? Can God be represented as something non-absolute (something existent - something that lacks, according to your philosophy)?

I think to resolve this problem (that God is either non-absolute, or your philosophy is wrong) we can, instead of attributing the ‘something and nothings’ to God’s love (and lack thereof), attribute those ‘something & nothings’ to ‘man’ (mind) -
By pulling your philosophy back from an attempted universal (a failed attempt, sorry) application and placing it in existential becoming, I think we can say that your philosophy has some truth to it.
By attributing the lack to humanity, and the way that an ego may feel as though it is somehow missing something, as if it is trying to ‘surpass’ or ‘overcome’ some lack or disjunction between its existence and its completion, I think we can save your concepts, reduced, non-absolute, but saved - not found to be complete, but instead, existent, and lacking somehow. but what is it that the ego is attempting to make up for, what is the ego ‘lacking’?
The ego is lacking a projected completion (the God); it lacks because of the phantom presence of an absent presence - the absence is created in the discrepancy between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ (lacking - moving towards) which is projected by the ego; rather than missing from God, the lack is projected from the ego, it is the extension. The idea of God creates the lack - not that God exists, and then lacks!
The lack is therefore, non-existent, it is the nothing which lies coiled within existence (As you suggest?) - however, the nothing coiled in existence is actually brought into existence by the ego (by man and his projection of ‘completion’, and the subsequent ‘difference’ between ego and completion). If we attempt to establish the nothing as ‘being in existence’ before man - well, how can we establish anything before establishing a nothing? A projected ‘gap’, a ‘widening partition’ between ‘being’ (as ‘infinity’, ‘existence’, ‘God’ etc.) and ‘becoming’ (as ‘man’, as ‘ego’ etc.) must be posited by the ego in order to establish that there is a lack, and this gap represents ‘nothing’ - there is nothing there, but the necessary dual binary code of ‘nothing & something’ (necessary in order to establish any sensical information about anything - that is, the nothing is the negation of the something, and negation functions as the important differential reference between ‘things’)

Having resolved the lack back down into the ego, rather than as an emanation from God, can we get rid of the lack - the phantom presence of an absence of that presence?

Giles Deleuze urges us in Anti-Oedipus (at least, how I chose to read this part of the text urged me) to consider that the lack can be overcome (that is, that the desiring-production in us all is the complete, and that becoming is being), there have been seminal works regarding ‘partial objects’ - the ‘presence’ of completion (God) need not be posited; rather, presence as a partial object, should not be given the status of a ‘complete object’. This would remove the sense of lack one feels when considering something ‘complete’ (God being the state of ‘complete’ ‘absolute’), because the ‘complete’ is totally separate to the ‘partial’; the ‘complete’ arises from the partial, but it is not of the partial.

Hopefully, that made sense…

No need to consider God here, no need to consider things as binary black and white (mixing to form grey) because that is all existential thought, and it is as absolute(ly incorrect) as God. Though God may exist, the lacking felt is nothing to do with God, it is to do with the creation of a sense of completion (like how the crescent moon only represents a ‘fraction’ of the ‘full-moon’ etc.) and a movement towards it. God represents this completion (and therefore, represents the absolute ‘lack’ of ‘lack’ - the non-existence of lack); God is not the cause of lack.

Get rid of lack basically.

Honestly, trying to argue against this thread or HTH here is just degrading ourselves. The proper response to such nonesense is silence, or a small smile of contempt.

Although it does almost beg to be refuted, as TUM did so well. Unfortunately there is no point trying to speak rationally to an irrational person. Might as well talk to a brick wall.

call it like you see it. this does a service to future readers of this thread.

[b]Hello +1-1[0] :slight_smile:
thank you for taking the time to participate in my newest thread “existence within colors”

please understand that those that ever believe my knowledge is somehow incorrect or can be disproven within time, simply do not understand my knowledge…if there is anything that you may not understand feel free to ask me one question and we may proceed (i would be glad to teach you my knowledge :slight_smile: )

if you do not know my work thus far (it seems you do not) it may help for you to know that (as i usually say) i like to go step-by-step not staircase by staircase…therefore you have presented a decent amount of words but unfortunately it would take entirely too long to address your response in its entirety… here’s one thing that may help you in your confusion or misunderstanding of my knowledge…many fall into the trap of thinking my knowledge (because of its presented simplicity) can be understood in its full depth by merely reading its face value- though possible for some during this time frame (great deep thinkers)- most people will not and will only understand by either thinking very deeply about my words or by personal teaching from myself or others that i have taught.

with that said, i urge you to think deeply about one simple question you may have about my work- present it and i will make sure to help you with it…i am here for you as well as others that truly want to learn :slight_smile:
(happy thinking)

God bless
[/b]