Language as Contradiction

****Update

Language as Contradiction

There is contradiction.

Contradiction is distinct.

The distinction of Contradiction as Contradiction is language.

There is Contradiction as an identity, C=C.

This identity is the language by which it is distinct.

To assert Contradiction outside of language is the limits of the language by which language is.

Identity is a language, language identifies.

The identity of contradiction contradicts itself by the limits of language.

The limits of language are but the identity of contradiction.

To contradict is to use language, by the use language does contradiction reveal is identity.

‘Contradiction as contradiction’ is no contradiction thus contradiction reveals its nature as its own contradiction.

The limits of language is the emergence of contradiction as the language itself.

The limits of language is the meaning of language, where meaning is subject to language thus the meaning of ‘meaning’ is but its self-contrasting limits where identity is contradictive.

Language is the limits of contradiction, to limit is to contradict as contradiction is but a limit.

The assertion of language is the assertion of contradiction, “assertion of language is the assertion of contradiction” is the assertion of language;

“Assertion of language” is an assertion of language; to assert is to contradict, “to assert is to contradict” is an assertion;

Language is assertion, “language is assertion” is language; language is contradiction.

Contradiction remains as its own limit, language is limit as “language is limit” is a limit; to limit is to contradict.

There is contradiction; “There is contradiction” is a contradiction.

Contradiction means contradiction and yet the meaning of contradiction as itself relies upon contradiction; what remains is the limits of language as contradiction for the meaning of language is its contradiction of language within language

The meaning of contradiction contradicts, the meaning of language is asserted, the meaning of limit is but its own limit, the meaning of meaning is but its own limit of contradiction as language itself.

Language is a process of limits by degree of its meaning, to apply meaning is to assert language, what remains is the limits of language by its meaning; ‘meaning’ is language.

Limit is the act of language, to apply limit is to apply language; “to apply limit is to apply language” is to apply limit is to apply language.

Limit is contradiction as contrast for said limit to be limit, thus the limit of limit is limit, the language of language is language;

language as limit is but a process of itself, what remains is language as limit within, of and through language as limit; contradiction is.

‘Is’ is not ‘is’ by degree of ‘is not’; ‘is not’ is ‘is not’ by degree of ‘is’; contradiction is but the language of limit as a limit of the language.

‘Is’ and ‘is not’; contradiction.

Contradiction, what does it mean?

Can you explain the meaning of your question without using the very language that requires differing definitions for each word?

Just what does contradiction mean to you dude,

What’s a similie for contradiction?

It’s really mindbending stuff you come out with eodnhoj7, really mindbending.

Takes a bit of non-linear thinking, don’t you agree?

Can you assert without contrast?

No, but the contrast shouldn’t be binary, especially in language.

Whether language is or is not binary is in itself binary.

Wanna bet?

15 characters.

Is the answer to that question non binary?

Depends how much you want to bet.

So it results in a binary of either betting or not betting.

What if I drop the banknote and someone else puts a bet on with it? They go get drunk and lose their money somewhere, and guess what? I find it :wink:

1 Like

Sorry, is this your money, eodnhoj7?

Your conflating who made the act with the act of betting itself. A bet is either made or not made, the change of who makes the bet across time is a gradation of source, but the action itself either is or is not.

The logic you are arguing is similar to this:

Betting: (You,Other)

Not strictly

You:Bet

Other:Bet

As the act of betting acts as a fixed point in the dialogue, the fixed point exists across the scale of betters thus resulting in the act of betting being expressed holographically through the scale of betters. So yes the betting is gradient. But the dichotomy of the fixed point (betting) still remain a dualism of either being present of absent.

Further more the gradient nature of betting, ie progressive differing betters, still results in a higher level dualism of “both betting and not-betting(gradient of betting)” and “neither betting nor not betting (gradient of not betting)”.

Thus there is a dualism of dualisms and a Buddhist tetrallemma occurs. Dualism is subject to a dualism of dualism or non-dualism.

Anyhow…

Clever…I will give you that.

Did I win? Didn’t I win? I guess we’ll never know.

You just used a binary…the answer is evident.

What does “evident” mean?

What does it not mean?