Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball.  'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? If the two are mutually exclusive then they are independent. If they aren't, then they are co-dependent. How can there be relativity without an absolute?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? If the two are mutually exclusive then they are independent. If they aren't, then they are co-dependent. How can there be relativity without an absolute? @symbols, how is this question related to what I've just said? If the two co-exist, and 'co-dependent' then the question isn't valid! It becomes a question without understanding.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? If the two are mutually exclusive then they are independent. If they aren't, then they are co-dependent. How can there be relativity without an absolute? @symbols, how is this question related to what I've just said? If the two co-exist, and 'co-dependent' then the question isn't valid! It becomes a question without understanding. I thought you said you can't question without understanding or was that also relative? The relative is dependent on the absolute.The relative is a function of the absolute.They are not co-dependent.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? If the two are mutually exclusive then they are independent. If they aren't, then they are co-dependent. How can there be relativity without an absolute? @symbols, how is this question related to what I've just said? If the two co-exist, and 'co-dependent' then the question isn't valid! It becomes a question without understanding. I thought you said you can't question without understanding or was that also relative? The relative is dependent on the absolute.The relative is a function of the absolute.They are not co-dependent. Yes. Your question isn't valid. Hence my response. You are asserting a belief. We already know it. Why express it?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered. Are you focusing on one thing? Your argument is you were 'absolutizing' a ball to show co-existence of 'absolutes' and 'relatives'.Without the ball,can there be relativity? You are also arguing for 'oneness'.Isn't that an absolute which facilitates the relativity? The question is simple,is relativism absolute? Even without the ball there's relativity. Yes an absolute relativizes, and vice versa. Everything is both absolute and relative. Or the correct question is; is the relative exclusive of the absolute? Is relativity dependent on the absolute? If the two are mutually exclusive then they are independent. If they aren't, then they are co-dependent. How can there be relativity without an absolute? @symbols, how is this question related to what I've just said? If the two co-exist, and 'co-dependent' then the question isn't valid! It becomes a question without understanding. I thought you said you can't question without understanding or was that also relative? The relative is dependent on the absolute.The relative is a function of the absolute.They are not co-dependent. Yes. Your question isn't valid. Hence my response. You are asserting a belief. We already know it. Why express it? My question doesn't become invalid because it doesn't meet your requirements. Who's the one asserting belief?I am asking questions and giving arguments for and against.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols, your question isn't invalid because it doesn't meet my standards. It's because it's doesn't meet logical requirements. A question must follow logically from valid grounds.
An argument must have a proof. Also must have a structure of a conclusion logically following from the premises.
So kindly, I might have overlooked it; where are those arguments?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols, your question isn't invalid because it doesn't meet my standards. It's because it's doesn't meet logical requirements. A question must follow logically from valid grounds.
An argument must have a proof. Also must have a structure of a conclusion logically following from the premises.
So kindly, I might have overlooked it; where are those arguments? Logical requirements.An argument must have proof.Are we in the same thread? Show me what you overlooked and I'll show you where the arguments are
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, your question isn't invalid because it doesn't meet my standards. It's because it's doesn't meet logical requirements. A question must follow logically from valid grounds.
An argument must have a proof. Also must have a structure of a conclusion logically following from the premises.
So kindly, I might have overlooked it; where are those arguments? Logical requirements.An argument must have proof.Are we in the same thread? Show me what you overlooked and I'll show you where the arguments are If an argument ends with 'x', then a question is valid if it's based on 'x'. Me showing you what I MIGHT have overlooked? Lol! 'Show me what you haven't seen'. Indeed I doubt if we're on the same thread.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols, your question isn't invalid because it doesn't meet my standards. It's because it's doesn't meet logical requirements. A question must follow logically from valid grounds.
An argument must have a proof. Also must have a structure of a conclusion logically following from the premises.
So kindly, I might have overlooked it; where are those arguments? Logical requirements.An argument must have proof.Are we in the same thread? Show me what you overlooked and I'll show you where the arguments are If an argument ends with 'x', then a question is valid if it's based on 'x'. Me showing you what I MIGHT have overlooked? Lol! 'Show me what you haven't seen'. Indeed I doubt if we're on the same thread. How am I supposed to know what you did and didn't overlook? The thread is here. You said if the two(relativity and absolutes) are mutually exclusive they can be independent and I asked can there be relativity without an absolute.What would be relative?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols, you can know what I overlooked if you say you've done something and I claim not to have seen it.
Let me repeat my argument: If x and y are mutually exclusive, such that x or y, then x and y are also independent.
But if x and y are not mutually exclusive, then they are co-dependent. That is x depends on y and vice versa.
Your question is, 'can there be x without y?' For which the above conditionals show that x without y is possible if they are mutually exclusive.
And the second conditional shows that x can't be without y if they are NOT mutually exclusive.
I say that the latter is the case. And I can give a simple proof for it.
x + y = y + x = z.
Now present your argument.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|