1. Originally Posted by NietzscheHimself
None whatsoever, the point is to attain consciousness in the form of all elements. We have done it with less/unless you are afraid to loose yourself/ assuming you know who you really are.
As I said somewhere:
Successful communication presupposes:
1 A common media (we have)
2 A common logic (we have not)
3 A common Manner(we have not)
So I predict we wont agree on anything

2. Originally Posted by Kumar
Truth is simple and clear. Lie is complex and vauge. Symplification and clarity lead to truth wheras complicating and and complexicity lead to lie.
There is nothing really objectionable in your claims as long as one understands that you are not talking about truth.
You are talking about ourselves... How truth appears to us.
But not about truth in itself!

3. Originally Posted by sigurdV
There is nothing really objectionable in your claims as long as one understands that you are not talking about truth.
You are talking about ourselves... How truth appears to us.
You can say so.

But not about truth in itself!
What is truth in itself?

4. Originally Posted by Kumar
You can say so.

What is truth in itself?
Truth is correspondence. Suppose we believe that something is.
Then our belief and our reality either corresponds ,or not. Example:

Lets say we believe its raining then:

Our belief that its raining is true if and only if its raining.

We understand what "its raining" means so we check if we get wet

when we are at the place where we believe its raining.

IF we get wet then our belief corresponds to reality in the true way...

And we know the truth.

This was discovered by Aristotle and refined by Alfred Tarski.

Im note sure how you will objest to the definition of truth?

So permit me the tell in the traditional sage manner (using fairy tales):

Aristoteles was sitting at the fire gnawing bones,

happy that he at last understood the truth in general.

Epimenides sits down beside him and says: This is not so!

A: Oh? Arent we sitting here gnawing bones!?

E: I dont dispute that! You misinterpret me!

E: It is not as I say this very moment!

Aristoteles never found a good answer to Epimenides statement...

5. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Truth is correspondence. Suppose we believe that something is.
Then our belief and our reality either corresponds ,or not. Example:

Lets say we believe its raining then:

Our belief that its raining is true if and only if its raining.

We understand what "its raining" means so we check if we get wet

when we are at the place where we believe its raining.

IF we get wet then our belief corresponds to reality in the true way...

And we know the truth.

This was discovered by Aristotle and refined by Alfred Tarski.

Im note sure how you will objest to the definition of truth?

So permit me the tell in the traditional sage manner (using fairy tales):

Aristoteles was sitting at the fire gnawing bones,

happy that he at last understood the truth in general.

Epimenides sits down beside him and says: This is not so!

A: Oh? Arent we sitting here gnawing bones!?

E: I dont dispute that! You misinterpret me!

E: It is not as I say this very moment!

Aristoteles never found a good answer to Epimenides statement...
First for truth, why we will agree and say that it is raining without checking?

Are you trying to interpret in following sense:-

6. Originally Posted by Kumar
First for truth, why we will agree and say that it is raining without checking?

Are you trying to interpret in following sense:-

"the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view"
How we percieve the truth changes nothing, truth remains the same!
How we percieve reality changes nothing, Reality remains the same!
(We can wear red colored glasses but that does not paint the reality red.)

Do you read carefully? Look again. Compare the blue underlinings:

"Our belief that its raining is true if and only if its raining.

We understand what "its raining" means so we check if we get wet

when we are at the place where we believe its raining.

IF we get wet then our belief corresponds to reality"

7. Originally Posted by sigurdV
As I said somewhere:
Successful communication presupposes:
1 A common media (we have)
2 A common logic (we have not)
3 A common Manner(we have not)
So I predict we wont agree on anything
You disgree that your body is made of elements and holds consciousness... Dear lord... What would the rest of the universe think if it understood you...

I don't think you actually believe that. I'm just finding the points in truth you are willing and able to accept. I would not have raised the premise unless you had brought forth a tangent of some sort. 100% of what I say is body language.

If I could stand before myself and ask myself how much of what I say or think do I really believe is true... I would have to say all of it. I can't turn back now not anymore. I've sat and doubted my own thoughts for years and years. Doubted my history; doubted my future. I can no longer stand in doubt of "our" future. Not even for the loss of words for my depictions.

The second you relinquish all doubt you are able to obtain the knowledge of God. Before then the same words can be spoken and nihil understood. Have I made myself clear enough for you? Are you still paralyzed by doubt brought from all heuristic implications? Do words mean nothing to you until you realize the implications? We all sit idely by and doubt ourselves an our own understanding of truth and our place in reality. No person has gotten a "feel" for what reality and consciousness have in common. "Being" as they are the same mechanism.

And the only truth standing is reality should be felt in the hands not in the head.

Let me teach you how to build a piece of "God", then we both will show the world how to become him.

Insane is having millions of diagrams of the elements in schools and having few places to see them all in action as if they really existed on these papers.

Go ahead keep doubting A type of consciousness in these real and everlasting objects exists. You only have to put these pieces together.

God does not appear where he can not be understood. Reality doesn't give us information we don't ask for!

It feels great to be pushed by your own thoughts...

8. Originally Posted by sigurdV
"the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view"
How we percieve the truth changes nothing, truth remains the same!
How we percieve reality changes nothing, Reality remains the same!
(We can wear red colored glasses but that does not paint the reality red.)

Do you read carefully? Look again. Compare the blue underlinings:

"Our belief that its raining is true if and only if its raining.

We understand what "its raining" means so we check if we get wet

when we are at the place where we believe its raining.

IF we get wet then our belief corresponds to reality"
I think, following link can give you better idea about realities, universals etc.(not preaching)

http://www.jvbnewjersey.org/jainismbasics.htm

9. The truth is the universe is alive. It itself is the foundation of consciousness. The order of elements decides the form of thought. And we feel proud and curious to have been able to evolve and create some mutated form from the ashes of our predecessors...

The truth is when all the elements are combined our thoughts will ring throuought the universe. That is the test of life. That is the purpose we all live. To find a way to live better.

Keep doubting the outcome. The possabilaties are infinite.

10. The truth is that my Name is m00se. And I can repeat the same sentences over and over and over and over to the same value and point and every one of you would believe them to be different stories!

And I have been banished because of it. And I have also earned a name because of it.

The truth is that I read nitzsche way too young. Before I knew what it all meant. Then I had a traumatic experience. I realized insanity seeks to control someone else. I pointed my thoughts to controlling something else. I found i could not do it without controlling someone else. And I lost the love of many friends and family. Then I gained most of it back. But I would like to regain it with the world before I see my family.

Or share my failure post facto as opposed to pre-facto as if such a concept exists... In a book or sentence full of experience you only reach empathy if you have had the same experience. I learned that from Nietzsche. To push forth any understanding violates moral laws and boundaries especially if they are not true. If you believe a person who reads Neitzsche and fell in love with a psychopath has the ability to lie. Then you are sadly mistaken

11. If you have read nitzsche and you are not disturbed there is something wrong with you

12. What I say should disturb your core; your very center; as the elements you hold in your hand (such as phones, computers, pads record such blasphemy as I speak, yet it is your side that remains silent. Mine occasionally let's me know where I stand by allowing me to look precisely at 3:16. For which there are obvious biblical references. Though I myself have written one down.

316

Weak sects. *Sects which feel they will remain weak hunt after individual intelligent adherents and try to make up in quality what they lack in quantity. This represents no small danger for the intelligent.
-NeitzscheHimself)

Which is completely apparent by the lacking of your response from the elements you hold. Perhaps you should be holding simpler elements before we touch these more difficult constructs. They are more your speed than the mindless drivel I peruse so often.

I just don't think it's fair to allow my family to listen to my prattle when even if they knew they could do little about it. I don't need college and it couldn't handle my deepest thoughts concerning reality. But the world could learn together and pray that it is true.

If everything can go wrong it stands that nothing will.

13. Why have I not been banned yet? I have said all I have to say. I have admitted to being someone who was previously banned. Dywyddyr is the only person capable of commenting on this insanity; if he even can. Yet he is ignoring me currently. That should tell you the most.

Still as long as I'm alive I shall wait for someone who understands me. As so many before our time have failed to do.

14. Originally Posted by NietzscheHimself
Why have I not been banned yet? I have said all I have to say. I have admitted to being someone who was previously banned. Dywyddyr is the only person capable of commenting on this insanity; if he even can. Yet he is ignoring me currently. That should tell you the most.

Still as long as I'm alive I shall wait for someone who understands me. As so many before our time have failed to do.
Perhaps moderators doesnt understand you? Youre reasonings are not very clear, at least not to me.
This raises a doubt...Am I clear myself? Here is my thesis!

A new solution of the "Liar" Paradox.

Definition:

y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true",
and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y.

No liar identity is Logically true.

Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb) )

1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption)

2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1)

3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2)

4. This contradicts the assumption. (QED)

The logical form of the foundation of the Paradox:

1. x is not true.
2. x = "x is not true".

Some values for x makes the liar Identity Empirically true:

1. Sentence 1 is not true.
2. Sentence 1 = " Sentence 1 is not true."

To get to the paradox one must produce " 3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2.
But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence!
Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1.

15. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Perhaps moderators doesnt understand you? Youre reasonings are not very clear, at least not to me.
This raises a doubt...Am I clear myself? Here is my thesis!
Clear? yes. Deep? I'm not sure.

Try believing that everything you can imagine is true. Then imagine that the people who you share the world had the potential to believe the same. For the act of thought transcends our simplest known principals. There is no priest prophet or principal who can tell you what consciousness is without bringing in chemicals, yet it goes even deeper into our reality. Our subconscious thrives on making sense of everything, yet it is afraid to face itself. So afraid the issue will drive them into madness both the conscious and the subconscious will avoid the issue completely or makes obscure circular reasoning in order to form a sort of justification for their own terms of existence. Justifiable fake conclusions for all times and all minds.

The only logical and philosophical way to differentiate truth from fiction where thought is concerned is that they all are logically true though empirically formed.

If your subconscious forms a thought, a daydream, an adverse thought to reality is it not stronger and more true than what our consciousness can bring forth from reality?

I don't dream asleep anymore. I have thought too far with my conscious mind to enjoy the imaginary things my subconscious believes. The freedom and power of god fades the instant I awake. Tarnishing the memories but leaving more and more of the feeling each and every night.

I know you all "feel" the same way about these concepts, even if your subconscious and conscious can not yet bear to reconcile.

To get to the paradox one must produce " 3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2.
But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence!
Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1
I used to know what a paradox was. Now I believe it's all quite trivial. Paradox exists in everything because for something to be a particular way it must stand out in a way that is not true of other objectives. If it has one truth it can not simultaneously hold it's opposite truth, Unless it is everything itself which is beside the point. We can only call it a lie if the assumption is based in the past and said to have happened. Everything else has to remain true until shown to be false in order to avoid the cycle of thoughts somehow pertaining to reality.

16. If you can write down a truth and it is instantly understood, you have no truth. What you say has been said before. Truth requires something unheard of.

17. Ban me ban me ban me!!!! I'm a fraud, a forger. The message can only be heard in person anyway. You all come here to seek both friendship and wisdom yet your personality forbids it. Leave and spread the word.

The elements can give you the power of god by any definition. And you seek not gods enlightenment for fear of loosing yourself. Which will only be lost in time if you do not heed these words.

Fear of fear is not the reason to listen. It is truth or fiction summed into one account of history. It is to push the limits of our understanding by combining our simplest principals.

$\infty$/0=Everything

18. Originally Posted by NietzscheHimself
If you can write down a truth and it is instantly understood, you have no truth. What you say has been said before. Truth requires something unheard of.
sounds like common sense to me.

19. Originally Posted by impaJah
sounds like common sense to me.
Truly? My whole speech is common sence? Or just the last bit of insight I obtained from deeper thoughts of my prattle?

Most of what I say occurs "post-facto"...

What do you "feel" from it all?

Page 6 of 8 First 12345678 Last

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•