All of them.

Considering a subjective experience is effectively formless in the respect it cannot be viewed by others, or given clear description thrpugh the self, subjectivity is formlessness — eodnhoj7

The fact that you are aware of your experiences means that it can be expressed to others through familiar points of reference. This means that others can have an understanding of it however limited and that a description can also be given.

The objective, that which is defined and observed by multiple people acts as a common median across subjective states considering many people can observe it. The objective acts a a form and function, or limit, in the respect it brings and maintains a form of unity inseparable from the act of it being structured.

Now the subjective, as formlessness or "no limit", and the objective as limit — eodnhoj7

If the objective 'acts as a common median across subjective states', how can it be a limit when the subjective is 'no limit'? How does limit arise from 'no limit'?

(example the rock may have a jagged edge that defines it, but what composes this jagged edge is formless) — eodnhoj7

What do you mean by this? This is what you said earlier, "The replication of certain limits results into complex limits as qualities which replicate so on and so for until some structure occurs." Where do you arrive at 'formless'?

3. A formless form is a unlimited limit, or a limit which exists through a continuum. A line or circle qualifies as such, as well as the number 1. Qualities such as colors are composed of infinite colors with an individual color merely being a boundary through which further colors exist.

4. One progressing to two is a logical observation of unity inverting to multiplicity. 2 existing as 1 number is a logical progression from multiplicity to unity. A cell individuating into another cell is a other example. 1 cell inverts to two cells as many cells with each cell being a unit in itself. — eodnhoj7

You can define a limit within a continuum but cannot then equate the limit to the continuum itself. If the limit is to represent itself as a continuum with its own components, then it would necessarily have a different scale from the continuum to which it belongs as a limit. You cannot have it both ways.
Also, the number two cannot represent 'more than one' and still be unity. You're mistaking the identity of a number with its value. Numbers are part of a relation and do not exist without their values. The individuality of a number does not substitute its value, therefore, 2, 3, 4, 5,... cannot be unity because unity is a measure of value. (1 - unit, 2 - dual, 3 - triple, 4 - quadruple, 5 - quintuple, etc.)

The inversion from a unified state into a multiple state observes a dualism through opposition (opposites) where inversion itself is void of any defintion because it is nothingness or has no structure.

This opposition, is solved through a form of synthesis, as joining. Where 1 moves to many and moves back to one again. 1 has a synthetic nature of continually moving. — eodnhoj7

Neither unity, duality nor multiplicity is contradicted by each other. The individual within a collective, whether of two or more, remains an individual. Unity does not become a duality or multiplicity. A circumstance can change from expressing unity to multiplicity but it can never be both. The circumstance (or limit) expressing unity is not identical to the one expressing multiplicity.

4. Shrodingers cat as both living and dead can be solved by observing the cat as "dying" where both states are observed as one continuum. If the cat is alive, but cells are dying is the cat dead? If the cat is dead, but certain cells keep replicating (such as toenails) is it alive? Shrodingers cat can be solved by a continuum.

The example shows a problem in the principle of identity, and the framework of classical logic being contradictory. — eodnhoj7

Logic is not contradictory. Dead does not mean cessation of processes or mechanisms. Dead means a cessation to the impulse of life expressed as consciousness. After death, the cells and tissues still maintain their mechanical and chemical organisations and proceed to enact their latent processes. You seem to have your own definition and, consequently, your own dilemma.

5. A progression is a localization of other progressions and strictly observes the directive qualities of one phenomena to another. In these respects, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure are inseparable. Intuitionist logic observes this in part where proof is merely a creation. The nature of unity and multiplicity, unity and dualism observes a synthetic property thrpugh the triad as one in itself. — eodnhoj7

A definition of a 'thing' as being composed of many 'things' is false. For example, from the above quote, 'A progression is a... of other progressions, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure...,'. You know you've not said anything about the identity of what a progression, proof or structure really is.

Take for example a man and woman, a dualism. They are unified through the function of sex and form of the child resulting. The man, woman and child are individual entities in there own right, while being connected through eachother as 1 family. — eodnhoj7

What if the man and woman are having an affair and cheating on their spouses? Suppose they get a child out of their respective wedlocks? See where I'm going with this? You are misrepresenting the idea of unity, dualism and multiplicity because you have not worked them out comprehensively.

It is clear you've borrowed your arguments from esoteric spiritual teachings. But you clearly have not understood the principles they're based on.

The concept of God comes to us from Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibnitz, and is also mentioned by our modern contemporary Roger Scruton who lives in England. — hks

The concept of God comes from many different sources. The ones you've mentioned are neither the earliest, most prominent nor most favoured. Religions seem to have cornered the market on that.

Plus, what if God knocked on your front door and introduced himself to you? What then? Then all your assumptions about God would fly out the window. — hks

First, I have made no assumptions against anything happening. I have merely expressed my perspective with regard to what I know. Like I said in the OP (if you cared to read), until God is perceived, it would be careless for me to assume what He/She/It/They is or would be. If I saw God, I would only tell what I experienced and nothing more. However, my experiences would not become the experiences of others no matter how much they proclaimed it. Such experiences would provide information but can never be identical to the actual experience I participated in. Savvy?
I'm not against information or experience. I'm just saying people should not conflate the two.

You do not know God. That much is readily apparent. It may be the end to YOUR OWN argument. But do not presume to speak for anyone else. — hks

I know the God(s) expressed in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism, Judaism, Spiritism, Spiritualism, etc, among other domains. I have acquired the information as primarily given by them and experienced whatever inspiration is possible to me. After all that, I have come to the conclusion that those who profess any one particular deity or restrict existence to any particular limits, in fact, do not understand God or existence.
All those who think science is against religion or religion is against science; all those afraid to admit the little they know and opt to build grand illusions to mask their ignorance; those who think faith works against reason; etc, know little of God.
The unfolding of reality has a harmony and intelligence unrivalled by human understanding. To presume the little distinction we can make out with our rudimentary perspectives accounts for anything more is to bite off more than we can chew. Is it a wonder there's so much conflict in our minds?
The first part to understanding is to accept reality for what it is. Information is just that. Experience, whether personal or collective, is just that. When we try to extend one domain beyond its prescribed borders and into another without the proper insight then we experience the backlash such an error generates.

A good atheist would mention all the terrible things that have happened in history and blame God. — hks

From my point of view, a good atheist would be indifferent to God. What you're describing, to me, is more of an a-theist, an anti-theist. While the term atheist encompasses both in definition, I think it is counter intuitive to negate something you do not believe exists. Therefore, those who are against theism, to me, are not strictly atheists.

A good deist would simply point out that after creating us, God has simply left us on our own. — hks

A good deist would also argue that God, having given us free will, allows us to make mistakes, suffer through them, learn from said suffering and make amends. I wonder which is more logical, especially with reference to our experiences... ?

If an axiom is self aware, to some degree, does it need an independent observer to exist? — eodnhoj7

Well, a "self-aware axiom" doesn't make any sense in my view. People are the "things" that are aware (well, or creatures with sufficiently complex brains--awarenss is a brain function), and axioms are ways of thinking that people do.

Be careful about confusing religion with philosophy.

If you don't yet know the difference then a good book to read is Bertrand Russell's book "History Of Western Philosophy."

You have mentioned several religions. I have mentioned none.

I am talking about philosophy not religion.

Philosophy encompasses all fields of knowledge and information. Try not to get caught up in the details, instead, understand the message. The mention of religions is to give perspective to my understanding of God(s). The philosophy in that statement is that I do have information about God and I have chosen to interpret it as expressed which I believe is reasonable. Do you find it otherwise? If so, reveal.

1. Actually an experience that is not expressed or formulated through thought or memory and translated into word or action is effectively formless. I may experience "now", and now due to its rate of change and its direction to me (impression) is effectively without form and does not contain any objective form until memory replicates it. However This objective natire, occuring through memory as a degree of self reflection, is not fully objective until some act or word allows it to becomes a common median people can find commonality with. Objectivity, as group reflectivity where people can observe the same thing, acts as a unifier or common bond.

2. The objective, as structure, encapsulates the subjective where the subjective is further given form and function as an objective phenomena. So I may have a subjective experience, that subjective experience becomes objective through memory. This memory give form and function to the subjective experience allow it to exist through further objective states. The subjective, as formless and chaotic, is directed and given form and function to further thought, action or word. The memory, as giving boundary, in turn leads to further memory as the further a memory is penetrated, the less subjective it becomes and the more objective and orderly it exits.

An objective phenomena connects subjective states as it is a common limit which effectively defines them into objective existence. For example a common memory may connect subjective states by effectively unififying them by encapsulating them under a common reason. What may separate one subjective state from another is separate objective experiences, which contains subjective formless nature that become objective and defined when further formed.

3. A formless form, or unlimited limit, can be observed as a limit which is continual. The limit as finite in itself, because it must continue if it is to exist has a dual formless nature because of its continuous nature. For example, a memory must continue on and replicate itself in the mind if it is to continue existing. While the memory may exist as limit which exists because it's replication effectively gives it a structure due to the inherent symmetry that comes with replication, this replication as effectively unifying aspects of the memory must continue. So while the memory exists as a limit, the continuous nature of this limit gives a degree of formless, or "no limit", as this continuity is uncertain and undefined. However this limit exists through a continuity.

4. The limit exists through a continuum, but because the limit exists through a continuum it exists as synthesizing with the continuum (limit synthesizes with no lomit) to results in further limit and no limit. ***This point may have to be explained further.

5. Each number can be identified as one set of infinite relations where 2, 3, 4, etc. are composed of infinite see of relations, and that while each number exists relative to other number, this nature of a single unit existing relative to another single unit observes 1 and 1n (through 1) effectively "folding" through itself as a process of continual inversion where the nature of a number as nothing in itself, or void) observes the continual progression of the number (as a means of inversion to further number) as necessary. Each number, on its own, has a dual nature of being 0 units in the respect it exists because of progression.

So 1(n) observes the number (any further axiom) as a unit that inverts through itself to further units.

0(n) observe the number (any further axiom) as nothing in itself.

So (a) for axiom (which can equate to the number example above) is 1(a) as a localization of progressive axioms. 0(a) observes the axiom as nothing in itself but rather a means of inversion, where it exists as a potential localization. This potential acts as a means of inversion where one locality inverts to another.

Example:

0(3) = 1(3) <-> 0(3) -> 1(4)

and

0(a) = 1(a) <-> 0(a) -> 1(b)

***<-> if and only if.
*** -> is directed towards, progresses to

6. The individual in a collective is defined by the collective, hence the individual contains as an element the collective considering the individual exists through collective which simultaneously forms it. While the individual is still an individual, the individual is an embodiment of the collective.

7. The defintion of death is subject to the fallacy of equivocation as it has multiple meanings, with any meaning as group agreement being subject to the bandwagon fallacy with this in turn leading to the fallacy of authority further leading to the quasi fallacy of no true scotsman (absent of identity) and so on and so forth.

The defintion of death is given proof by the framework which contains it, death as change, is a point of inversion within life, but as a point of inversion can observe all degrees of existence as funda,mentally dying in some way shape or form further implying that all existence has some form of life property and consciousness within this given framework of interpretation.

7A) .I will delete an old thread, and replace it with a thread on the nature of fallacies both existing and being subject to there own fallacies as well as the three laws of logic being contradictory. Classical logic is contradictory. However point 7A will need a seperate thread to address this point, so do not bother responding to much, I will address this point further elsewhere.

8. A cow is composed of many parts. So are its legs. So are its atoms. A thing is composed of many things, much like a set.

9. I see what you are saying...do you? You're argument has no unity, as it has no structure...do you need what I am saying?

If a man and woman have a child through cheating, the individual are separating there current unions (and themselves as elements of the union to form a new biological union. The individuals involved respectively as divided by one ritual/biological union and a strict biological union.

If a child is born out wedlock, while the ritual and spiritual union may be left out (or maybe just ritual if the parents stay together) the union is still strictly biological.

10. My arguments are a sythesis of all the research, reading, discussions and practical experience over the years:

As to the reading, it is a sythesis of:

Thales, pythagoras, parmenides, anaximander, laepeducious (wrong spelling), heraclitus, Socrates, plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Marcus aurellius, seneca, ibn rushed, maimonedes, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Kant, Neitzche, Kierkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Stein (Catholic), Wittgenstein, Popper, Hall (freemason), Jesus (Christianity), Buddha (Buddhism), Nagajeera (buddhism), Muhammad (islam), Crowley (satanist), Lavey (satanist), Liebniz, Newton, Solomon (proverbs), The Kybalion, hermeticism, etc...

And various miscellaneous philosophers and a whole host of asian philosophers stemming past lao tzu (taoism (but I cannot remembee thier names or how to pronounce or spell them)

Actually an experience that is not expressed or formulated through thought or memory and translated into word or action is effectively formless. — eodnhoj7

Every experience has to be interpreted through the mental faculty for it to qualify as an experience. The mind is the faculty or tool that processes experiences into consciousness, how can its influence be absent?

I may experience "now", and now due to its rate of change and its direction to me (impression) is effectively without form and does not contain any objective form until memory replicates it. — eodnhoj7

Every experience is appreciated as form. (Try configuration, circumstance or conditions for better context, but ultimately it refers to a form or manner of expression.) Something formless cannot create an impression on consciousness, awareness, mind, etc. The only difference is the quality of form in comparison with others. Also, as long as an experience is held within the bounds of personal/individual bias, it remains subjective. Memory does not determine objectivity/subjectivity. The degree of interaction, with different selves or distinct external points of references, is what determines objectivity. It is a relation not an independent factor.

However This objective natire, occuring through memory as a degree of self reflection, is not fully objective until some act or word allows it to becomes a common median people can find commonality with. — eodnhoj7

Like I said in my first post on this thread (after the OP), "the source of a percept is objective in its relation to different percipients while the source of a concept is always subjective no matter how closely a concept resembles that of another concipient." I will give another example: take two siblings and ask them to give the best qualities of their mother. While they may give a lot of similar qualities, there will be a few that are not matched. This is what shows the subjectivity of concepts. The same would work if you asked them to define their mother's face for a sketch artist to draw. The two renderings will not be identical even if they have plenty of matching features. However, the mother, the source of their perception, remains the same hence the objectivity assigned.

Your explanations show you are acquainted with certain information, unfortunately, they aren't coherent with the wisdom you are trying to match. There are a lot of holes in your arguments due to lack of strict adherence to logic. It is not enough to regurgitate what someone else has said. If you do not understand it yourself, it is impossible to pass on someone else's knowledge as yours.
"Own knowledge is better than that of another," I'm sure one of those philosophers taught something to the tune of this.

You should know the spiritual does not exclude the material. If we restrict 'dharma' to mean duty in the most comprehensive sense, then, because we have spiritual and material experiences among others, we have a responsibility to participate in both the spiritual and material but in accordance with a strict and appropriate code of conduct (call it ethics or morality).
Ultimately, there is only one experience, life, the rest whether spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc, is just perspective. I don't know what you're trying to explain by a biological relation devoid of the others (in "If a man and woman have a child through cheating, the individual are separating there current unions (and themselves as elements of the union to form a new biological union. The individuals involved respectively as divided by one ritual/biological union and a strict biological union. If a child is born out wedlock, while the ritual and spiritual union may be left out (or maybe just ritual if the parents stay together) the union is still strictly biological.") but it is wrong.
Whatever circumstances brings people into having relations with each other is a synthesis of all the above experiences (the spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc), it would be wrong to limit it to just one. This is also a key point of spiritual teachings on human relations.

You really need to read Russell's book.

What point is it supposed to relate?

Anyway, I would readily indulge you if you reciprocate by reading, "Your Mind and How to Use it" by William Walker Atkinson.

I'm not interested in sociology. I am interested in Philosophy.

Back to the original matter though, Russell teaches everyone to put Philosophy, Science, and Religion into 3 different baskets and keep them separated at all times.

You seem to be more like Augustine mixing religion with philosophy. He had no choice. He was under the thumb of the Pope.

You at least have a choice. You may choose Theism, Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Nihilism or any other -ism.

Most philosophers are Deist or Agnostic.

There is no justification for Theism or Atheism. These two are belief systems not supported by Philosophy.

Unlike you I'm not predisposed nor inclined to follow his directive. And last I checked, Bertrand Russell is not the definitive authority on what philosophy is.

It's bad form to judge me negatively for acting against your expectations. The bar on good philosophy has been whether it is logical, reasonable, rational or, at the least, practical and beneficial. So what if I don't conform to Mr. Russell's or your parameters of philosophy?

Also, like all philosophers including Mr. Russell, their philosophies do not exclude science and religion. There's the part of science and religion which associate with philosophy. That is, facts, which in science are often derived from empiricism; analytical or critical processing of information; ethics or morality, a key component of religion; etc.

Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy outlines in great detail the interaction between religion, politics, science and philosophy, which makes me wonder: the directive you're talking about, is it a case of do as I say not as I do, or what?

Modern Philosophy is not an Augustine approach. We are not chained to a book translated out of ancient Greek and Hebrew.

That's a very compelling argument.

1) The influence of the mental facet is absent when defining the mental faculty according to degrees where one mental facet is greater than or lesser than another mental facet. This necessitates a form of relativity.

Now the nature of the mental faculty as "processing" observes an inherent creative process considering this "process" is the inversion of one experience into another (consciousness in this case).
Hence the mental faculty has a nature of "inversion" so to speak, where it is fundamentally formless on its own accords but exists through the subjective experiences it exists through.

These experiences, that which the mental process inverts into consciousness, in turn form the mental process. This necessitates the nature of experiences, that which impresses upon the void of subjective nature, vary in degrees and this variation causes a variation in the mental processes.

So the degrees, that determine one mental process as less than or greater than another mental process (through relativism), is really the degree of one experience to another. A lower grade mental process, lets say that of a mineral, may be less in degree than that of a human mind. The rock exists under a certain framework of mind where the rock exists through only so through so many states as a rock. The human mind, follows in a similar form and function, however has a higher degree of relations.

A rock may invert into further minerals, which in turn composed organic elements which in turn result in rocks again over time.

A human mind may follow the same course and manner as the rock, however it is able to speed up or slow down this process of the rock changing (mining, industrialization)

In these manners one mental faculty differs from another by not just how they exist through time and effectively manipulate it. This observation of time, with all being existing through it, is what seperates one mental faculty from another as time (parts composed of and composing other parts) is strictly a measuring limit which forms phenomenon. This understanding of time, as a ratio fundamentally, is in itself constant and as constant transcends past itself into an absolute law that is infinite.

Time is a measuring quality, all being exists through, with the grades of various mental faculties being determined by there ability to create it through synthesizing relations.

****This may appear abstract so I may have to elaborate further on it.

2.Every experience is appreciated as form. (Try configuration, circumstance or conditions for better context, but ultimately it refers to a form or manner of expression.) Something formless cannot create an impression on consciousness, awareness, mind, etc. The only difference is the quality of form in comparison with others. Also, as long as an experience is held within the bounds of personal/individual bias, it remains subjective. Memory does not determine objectivity/subjectivity. The degree of interaction, with different selves or distinct external points of references, is what determines objectivity. It is a relation not an independent factor.

a. Formlessness, that which effectively is "void" is an inversion of one structure through another under the dualism of "one/many". I understand that his one/many concept may sound repititive, but it is very important concept to see from different angles considering its foundational nature to not just measurement and reason, but all being in general.

aa. One is seperated from many because of this formless nature of one being observed through many.

ab. Many is seperated from one because its formless nature necessitates we observe it through units which reflect 1 but are not one in themselves.

ac. This division between 1 as formless because of the many, and many as formless because of the one, observes the formless nature of void inverting itself into form through which it continues.

A quality of form in comparison to others, causing this differential, observes all quality as comparitive in nature and hence a common bond. Under this relativistic nature of quality, quality becomes a boundary of movement for further qualities.

b. Individual experience is not limited to a subjective nature when given reflection upon it. An experience maintains a nature of limit when given structure through memory. Now this memory may be subjective in the respect it may only belong to the observer, however it still has an objective property of structure (complex limits). This objective nature becomes "denser" when further objectified to a word or action which is share with others as it encapsulates and gives form to further subjective experience.

c. Memory, as an axiom, is simultaneosly objective/subjective in regards to point b.

d. External and internal are relative terms of perception. What is external is a shallow view, when the external is penetrated to the internal, the internal becomes shallow again. The internal becomes external. The act of self-reflection, as a form of penetration of the self through the self giving form to the self, observes all individual has objective qualities in themselves.


3. Relative to the mother example, the concept of mother as well as similiar qualities shows an objective element. All objectivity is structure, structure is unity. All structure exists through symmetry as unit where certain limits are replicated and maintain a continuum.

4.Your explanations show you are acquainted with certain information, unfortunately, they aren't coherent with the wisdom you are trying to match. There are a lot of holes in your arguments due to lack of strict adherence to logic. It is not enough to regurgitate what someone else has said. If you do not understand it yourself, it is impossible to pass on someone else's knowledge as yours.
"Own knowledge is better than that of another," I'm sure one of those philosophers taught something to the tune of this.

Are you speaking from knowledge or belief?

Yes, one knowledge is better than another. All is better than any one philosophy, but where each philosophy fails is in its observation that it is strictly an angle of "the all" it does not wish to observe. Hence it contradicts itself on its own terms.

Aquinas gave some justice to his argument in this respect as on his deathbed he stated "it is all but straw". Neitzche lost his mind, in face of his philosophy, and ended up canceling out his own nature in the end by defending a whipped horse.

The biological relation, devoid of other unities, still shows that in the face of perplexity and deficiency there is some underlying unity that cannot be erased in the face of any percievable chaos. You claim I am wrong...good...but is it not contradictory to say such a thing without sufficient reason? To believe you would be a fallacy of authority, and a lie considering you admit no authority to any philosophical endeavor. Or do you?

Whatever circumstances brings people into having relations with each other is a synthesis of all the above experiences (the spiritual, mental, emotional, material, etc), it would be wrong to limit it to just one. This is also a key point of spiritual teachings on human relations.

True, but a deficiency in a balance spirituality still does not negate the fact that the biological union has some form of balance and unity to it. The absence of spirituality may have led to a biological union, as all chaos (or deficiency) still moves towards unity. The spirituality, through the breaking of the relationship, may be not be a full unity...but the biological relationship resulting in the child still is.

You claim it is wrong to limit it to just one problem, as all are connected as one, but limiting it two one problem is a reflection of the one.

At this point, I raise my white flag and call an end to this unyielding argument. I will have my previous statements stand in their own merit as to whether they uphold logic. Still, I find a considerable amount of deficiencies in your arguments and I don't know whether it's in linguistics, logic or both but, if you make sense to yourself, then, I can live with it too. I withdraw. Perhaps I'm bound to realise that I'm the one with the deficiencies and inconsistencies. Anyway, have at it as you please.

Its up to you, it may be best to address one subject at a time in different threads (limit and no limit, subjective and objective nature of universal consciousness, multiple types of unified, etc.) for future reference.

Truth be told, the topics we covered could be dealt with in multiple threads.

When dealing with the nature of the infinite (God in this case) be wary of an infinite answer.

True, we are also chained to a thousand other religions as well with many coming from the same texts.

Philosophy is supposed to free you from any dogmas and all brainwashing. With a skill set in Philosophy you should be able to free your mind.

I will keep that dogma in mind.

I support and subscribe to Russell's notion of putting Religion in its own separate box and treating it as both non-scientific and also non-philosophical.

Most religions have a component of ethics in them. But that's the only similarity.

Russell's logic was given evidence in his Principia Mathematica. It was described through a progressive sequence of non self referencing symbols. It was deemed a failure.

Russell was not infallible. His two greatest fallacies were (1) thinking math exists outside of the human mind and (2) subscribing to atheism. Other than this, he is a good starting point for a newbee with his history of western philosophy. Better than Plato.

Any philosopher is a good starting point if it leads to further philosophers.

While math may exist inside the human mind (God as number) it may also exist outside as well.

Atheism has its virtues in the face of blurred truth. Unbelief can alternate to belief.

Atheism is a belief system. It has fallacies like any other belief system.

God is not a number. But I know of several mathematicians and math teachers who believe It is.

God may not me limited to number, but under the defintion of Divine Measurer and One or Many or Triadic, God exists through number.

This sounds like mathematical bunk to me.

When I think of God I think of Aquinas' proofs. Not math.

Pythagoras viewed God through the Monad(s). Number is both quantity and quality.

Elaborate on Aquinas proofs and why you believe they are sufficient.

Number is both quantity and quality. — eodnhoj7

Didn't expect you to argue this. I mentioned it to you earlier about numbers being both. I thought there was something weird about your arguments and now I get it. You used paradoxes to imply logic - that was your fallacy. I was confounded by how you used form and formless, cause and acausal/causeless, turned unity into multiplicity and back, used a whole mess of wording without elaborating any distinct meaning, but it's good to see you talk straight afterwards. Taking the argument as a contest in gab was a good strategy but poor in philosophy especially when it clearly contradicted logic. Good to finally meet this other side.
Namaste. :pray:

No fallacy. Hegelian/Fichte synthesis and the Pythagorean nature of 3 observes all contradictions a reconciable and merely approximations of unity.

What rules of logic and I am breaking specifically? I can cover those rules if you wish.

No contest.

Observing unity, duality (mutiplicity), and triads (unity and multipliicty) observes all phenomena as having a numerical base which defines them.

Unity is structure as cause, where all structures as extensions of one are unified through one.

Duality is the opposition of structures through their multiplicity as absence of structure leading to contradiction. Paradox is a reconciable contradiction. All contradictions are reconciable due to there base in a dualism as opposing unities rooted in unity. Quantitatively 2 is composed of one. Duality is acausal as multiplicity is no unity as void. Dualism is the relations of unities as units.

Triad is the joining of causal unity and acausal multiplicity (dualism) as synthesis between being (unity) and non being (multiplicity) as both. Synthesis is the origin of unity and multiplicity and exists as both and is beyond both. Synthesis is existence in the face of nothingness as existence. Considering nothingness cannot exist on its own terms, it is observe through multiplicity.