Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) claims: "“1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”"

He is right, 1-dimesional space is some particular (context-dependent or local) form of the Cross-contexts concept of Dimensional space w.r.t its all particular (context-dependent or local) forms.

Once again Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent holds, but Context-dependent-only skill(ers) get only its Context-dependent accept.
Click to expand...




What different context other than geometry are you using your “concept of Dimensional space” in? Without such a different context there is again nothing that crosses contexts in your “Cross-contexts”. Once again you seem to be simply and deliberately confusing different dimensional spaces within the same context (geometry) as somehow being different contexts.
 
The Man said:
What different context other than geometry are you using your “concept of Dimensional space” in? Without such a different context there is again nothing that crosses contexts in your “Cross-contexts”. Once again you seem to be simply and deliberately confusing different dimensional spaces within the same context (geometry) as somehow being different contexts.
Click to expand...
Doron simply continues his assault on non-existing issues. That's why his claims, such as
Some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) claims: "“1-dimesional space” is a particular value of “dimesional space”"
Click to expand...
always lack a citation. The second and related reason for the deliberate omissions is that by including the source, he runs a high risk of being shown that he misinterpreted the idea in the source, as it was the case many times.
 
epix said:
Doron simply continues his assault on non-existing issues. That's why his claims, such as

always lack a citation. The second and related reason for the deliberate omissions is that by including the source, he runs a high risk of being shown that he misinterpreted the idea in the source, as it was the case many times.
Click to expand...

Well as I’ve said before, epix, Dorons current pretend ignorance of other posters works quite well as it clearly demonstrates that he is deliberately not addressing (and never has been) the assertions and questions of other posters but just some fantasy “verbal_symbolic-only skill(er)”, yet still finds such problematic and can’t even agree with just himself. That he seems driven to fantasies that trouble him so, then sees himself and/or his notions as the savoir from such troubles but just can’t seem to save himself from his own troubling fantasies, is irony of the saddest kind.
 
The Man said:
Well as I’ve said before, epix, Dorons current pretend ignorance of other posters works quite well as it clearly demonstrates that he is deliberately not addressing (and never has been) the assertions and questions of other posters but just some fantasy “verbal_symbolic-only skill(er)”, yet still finds such problematic and can’t even agree with just himself. That he seems driven to fantasies that trouble him so, then sees himself and/or his notions as the savoir from such troubles but just can’t seem to save himself from his own troubling fantasies, is irony of the saddest kind.
Click to expand...
Maybe Doron lost his own definition of 'local' and 'non-local' and so he keeps going thinking 'local' in the wrong place.

That way, Doron, that way -------------->
 
epix said:
Maybe Doron lost his own definition of 'local' and 'non-local' and so he keeps going thinking 'local' in the wrong place.

That way, Doron, that way -------------->
Click to expand...

Remember epix, "belongs to AND does not belong to" is a perfectly valid and in fact a critical fundamental expression of Doronics. So "belongs to" "local" "AND does not belong to" "local" (thus "non-local") must ensue. So rather than that direct self-contradiction being an artifact of some simple lack of self-consistency it seems to be the primary goal. Which of course simply makes Doronics self-refuting as disagreeing with it is an explicit and fundamental requirement of agreeing with it.
 
The Man said:
Remember epix, "belongs to AND does not belong to" is a perfectly valid and in fact a critical fundamental expression of Doronics. So "belongs to" "local" "AND does not belong to" "local" (thus "non-local") must ensue. So rather than that direct self-contradiction being an artifact of some simple lack of self-consistency it seems to be the primary goal. Which of course simply makes Doronics self-refuting as disagreeing with it is an explicit and fundamental requirement of agreeing with it.
Click to expand...
Stupid me! That's the heart of the issue: (monologue AND not-monologue) = (monologue AND dialogue)!!! That's why Doron hangs around Religion rather than Philosophy to share the art of seeing Oneness in Mutual Exclusivity. Now the question is who Doron really is.

:jaw-dropp

This is big! The moment so many folks have been waiting for with reverence AND joy already arrived a few years back - largely unnoticed. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So you still just don’t (or just don’t want to) understand context. Whatever your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers)” may or may not get, the statement “Again the curvature of a line is specifically a property of that line" is explicit. By all means, please, tell us what other curvatures (other than 0) your “straight line” has?


So which is it Doron, your “straight line” is not entirely straight (given your history you claiming your “straight line” does not involve being straight wouldn’t surprise anyone) or your claim that “the property of curvature is context dependent ("specifically a property of that line"), such that no measured curvature is the one and only one possible curvature of the 1-dimesional space.” is just nonsensical gibberish that you don’t even agree with?


If all this blather is just intended to assert that different lines can have different curvatures then once again you simply belabor the trivial just as different lines can have the same curvature.
Click to expand...

The claim that there are different 1-dimensional spaces according to different curvatures is just nonsensical gibberish, simply because being 1-dimesinal space is Cross-contexts (invariant) realm w.r.t all different (variant) Context-dependent curvatures, which are partial and therefore local accepts w.r.t Cross-contexts (invariant) 1-dimensional space realm.

Again, a considered realm is at least Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent, such that Cross-contexts is the common (and therefore non-local) rule wr.t all possible partial Context-dependent (and therefore local) expressions of the common and therefore non-local) rule.

The given curvature of 1-dimensional space is explicitly a partial property of that 1-dimensional space.

By this notion 1-dimensional space is the unified realm among partial expressions of it.

But before we get the unified realm of 1-dimensional space, we are aware of 0 curvature as the finest and therefore objective aspect of 1-dimensional space, such that observing the rest of the curvatures from 0 curvature view all curvatures > 0 are fully known as partial (and therefore subjective aspects) of 1-dimensional space.

For example from the observation of 0 noise, no noise > 0 is escaped from ones awareness, and by not losing 0 noise during noises > 0, ones awareness is Unified into a one realm, exactly as being aware of 1-dimesional space is actually being aware of the unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one realm.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Stupid me! That's the heart of the issue: (monologue AND not-monologue) = (monologue AND dialogue)!!! That's why Doron hangs around Religion rather than Philosophy to share the art of seeing Oneness in Mutual Exclusivity. Now the question is who Doron really is.

:jaw-dropp

This is big! The moment so many folks have been waiting for with reverence AND joy already arrived a few years back - largely unnoticed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope, it's reverence AND irreverence OR sorrow AND joy. Don't you go messing up that self-contradictory Oneness, Doron continues to stress what the consequences of such will be.
 
doronshadmi said:
The claim that there are different 1-dimensional spaces according to different curvatures is just nonsensical gibberish, simply because being 1-dimesinal space is Cross-contexts (invariant) realm w.r.t all different (variant) Context-dependent curvatures, which are partial and therefore local accepts w.r.t Cross-contexts (invariant) 1-dimensional space realm.
Click to expand...

"partial"? So now only part of your "straight line" indivisible "atom" is well, straight?

doronshadmi said:
Again, a considered realm is at least Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent, such that Cross-contexts is the common (and therefore non-local) rule wr.t all possible partial Context-dependent (and therefore local) expressions of the common and therefore non-local) rule.
Click to expand...

Once again you are apparently simply, and most likely deliberately, confusing different descriptions within a singular context as different contexts.


doronshadmi said:
The given curvature of 1-dimensional space is explicitly a partial property of that 1-dimensional space.
Click to expand...

Again your "1-dimensional space" "atom" can have no " partial", you simply disagree with yourself and one of the basic tents of your notions again.

doronshadmi said:
By this notion 1-dimensional space is the unified realm among partial expressions of it.
Click to expand...

So now your "line" "atom" does have parts that are, well, unified. See union, you may be learning something in spite of yourself Doron.

doronshadmi said:
But before we get the unified realm of 1-dimensional space, we are aware of 0 curvature as the finest and therefore objective aspect of 1-dimensional space, such that observing the rest of the curvatures from 0 curvature view all curvatures > 0 are fully known as partial (and therefore subjective aspects) of 1-dimensional space.
Click to expand...

So before your unified "straight line" "atom" has a curvature greater than 0 (is no longer straight) it is straight? Amazing!!!


doronshadmi said:
For example from the observation of 0 noise, no noise > 0 is escaped from ones awareness, and by not losing 0 noise during noises > 0, ones awareness is Unified into a one realm, exactly as being aware of 1-dimesional space is actually being aware of the unified Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent one realm.
Click to expand...

"noise > 0" might be "escaped from" some aspect of your "awareness" (or lack thereof) when you hear "no noise" but not from the awareness of most (particularly if they happen to have a dB meter)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decible
 
Verbal-symbolic skill(ers) get mathematical or physical dimensional space only in terms of the verbal_symbolic expression "Geometry".

Ones again Dimensional space is really known by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Getting Dimensional space only in terms of visual_spatial skills does not hold exactly as getting Dimensional space only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills does not hold.
 
Last edited:
It is not amazing at all how context-dependent-only skill(ers) (whether they get a given realm by verbal_symbolic-only skills or visual_spatial-only skills) can't get that the "host" (the atomic state) of a given mathematical or physical dimensional space is defined but not made of its "hosted" expressions, exactly as a 1-dimensional space is defined as non-local w.r.t all possible curvatures, but it is not made of these curvatures, exactly because they are localities w.r.t it (the 1-dimensional space is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a non-local atomic state) where no possible curvature is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a local atomic state).
 
Last edited:
Finer than all thoughts is not itself a thought, exactly as silence is not itself a noise.

Exactly as one's attention is naturally aware of more and more excited levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it), one's attention is naturally aware of more and more calmer levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it).

At the calmest awareness one naturally transcends any mantel activity (any thoughts’ process) and actually aware of the source of space\time, which transcends space\time, where this awareness is naturally free of any mental activity (any thoughts’ process).

By actually use one's natural abilities to be aware of the space\time source without losing it during mental activity (during thoughts’ process), one's awareness is developed into Unity awareness, which enables to act in real harmony w.r.t other space\time expressions.

For example, please look at http://www.tm.org/blog/maharishi/transcendental-meditation-mantra/

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi:

“The practice (of Transcendental Meditation) involves thinking of a word, a word devoid of meaning.

Meaning is a static thing. The sound changes in its pitch—it can be loud sound, or low sound. The meaning is the same at every pitch. If the mind is on the meaning, there is no chance of refining the meaning. If the mind is not on the meaning, there is a chance of refining the sound, there is a chance of experiencing the sound in its finer values till the finest could be transcended and the awareness could reach that inner wakefulness devoid of any perception. This will be Transcendental Consciousness….

This unbounded awareness where the perception is no longer within boundaries—it is unbounded. This is a silent state of the mind, and it is so fulfilling that the physiology having tasted this kind of quietness of activity it cherishes that. And because it is cherishing to the whole physiology, to the whole experience, the physiology tends to maintain that state naturally even when there are activities. So by nature that state is experienced, and by nature, through practice, it becomes stabilized in the field of activity….

The whole thing is very simple. It is an absolutely natural process.”
Click to expand...


One naturally gets space/time as all there is, as long as one does not actually transcendent it (there is no evidence of anything beyond space/time from space/time standpoint).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Nope, it's reverence AND irreverence OR sorrow AND joy. Don't you go messing up that self-contradictory Oneness, Doron continues to stress what the consequences of such will be.
Click to expand...
Double-stupid me! The glorious moment hasn't arrived yet, coz Doronetics draws inspiration from elsewhere:
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi:

“The practice (of Transcendental Meditation) involves thinking of a word, a word devoid of meaning.
Click to expand...
In other words, the practice (of Doronetics) involves thinking of many words - words devoid of any meaning.
 
Last edited:
Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't transcendent the thinking process exactly because they are captured by meanings, where meanings are given only at the level of thoughts process.

The practice TM involves awareness beyond thoughts' process meaning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The claim that there are different 1-dimensional spaces according to different curvatures is just nonsensical gibberish
Click to expand...

For one so vocal about open thinking, Doron is certainly narrow in his ideas. Too bad, really. There's so much of Mathematics he just doesn't get because, well, he just doesn't get it.
 
doronshadmi said:
Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't transcendent the thinking process exactly because they are captured by meanings, where meanings are given only at the level of thoughts process.

The practice TM involves awareness beyond thoughts' process meaning.
Click to expand...

Space is curved due to gravitational influences of various masses, some of which transparently move, such as planets, so the realities are more complex than the concept example of a curved space and its curvature at a given point:

curv.negative.jpg


There are two approaches to the problem:

One was used by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

transcendental-meditation.gif


and the other was used by

einstein-chalkboard-thumb.jpg


(That Ri k doesn't really directly relate to Riemann - it denotes Ricci Curvature Tensor.)

I think I pick the former option in its renegade version, coz it includes One Word that HAS actually meaning despite the fact that it IS NOT even spoken:

 
epix said:
Space is curved due to gravitational influences of various masses, some of which transparently move, such as planets, so the realities are more complex than the concept example of a curved space and its curvature at a given point:

[qimg]http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/curv.negative.jpg[/qimg]

There are two approaches to the problem:

One was used by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[qimg]http://www.yogamax.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/transcendental-meditation.gif[/qimg]

and the other was used by

[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tNzXK_LznaY/TFcTM-fuH6I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/hKnyPR8_Xyk/s1600/einstein-chalkboard-thumb.jpg[/qimg]

(That Ri k doesn't really directly relate to Riemann - it denotes Ricci Curvature Tensor.)

I think I pick the former option in its renegade version, coz it includes One Word that HAS actually meaning despite the fact that it IS NOT even spoken:

Click to expand...
By Unity awareness, consciousness in varying degrees is actually many expressed levels of a one realm.

For example, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not understand that thoughts and their related meanings are simply finer levels of consciousness, of the spoken.

The spoken level is realty aware of Unity only if silence is known during the spoken.

Only by Unity awareness the spoken level fulfills its real meaning, where real meaning is archived only if it is an organ of a one unified framework, such that meanings are mutually developed (contradiction is naturally avoided among organs of a one unified realm).

Actually contradiction is the signature of the failure of the spoken level to be expressed without loosing the awareness of silence during the spoken expressions (verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) fulfill their limited skills by not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172).

(B.T.W the curvature at the red point is infinite, simply because by using Curvature as the essential concept, any given point has an infinite curvature)
 
Last edited:
Let's clarify the universality of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Some examples:

The expression "2 = 1+1" holds exactly because 2 is Cross-contexts w.r.t each 1, where each 1 is Context-dependent w.r.t 2, or in other words, "2 = 1+1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The expression "0 = 1-1" holds exactly because 0 is Cross-contexts w.r.t 1 or -1, where 1 or -1 are Context-dependent w.r.t 0, or in other words, "0 = 1-1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

Please pay attention that being Cross-contexts is defined as the common state among several things, such that the sum of several things is first of all the common state among them.

By following Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, 1-dimesional space as the sum of all possible curvatures along it, is Cross-contexts w.r.t all possible curvatures along it, where each possible curvature is Context-dependent w.r.t the 1-dimesional space.

So is the case of the concept of Dimensional space w.r.t the particular possible dimensional spaces, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular dimensional space is the common property of that concept.

So is the case of the concept of Set w.r.t the particular possible sets, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular set is the common property of that concept.

In other words, Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent is the universal framework of all possible frameworks.

By Cross-contexts “the top” of given Context-dependent boxes “is open”, which enables to gather them as a one comprehensive framework.
 
Last edited:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7766547&postcount=178 it has to be stressed that the the common state can have the same value of one of the context-dependent values, for example in the expression "1 = 1+0" the left side of the expression is the Cross-contexts common state and the right side of the expression is the Context-dependent things.

Again, please pay attention that being Cross-contexts is defined as the common state among several things, such that the sum of several things is first of all the common state among them (among several things, no matter what value each one of them has).

In other words, the structure of Cross-contexts AND Context dependent one framework has at least Y shape, where the Cross-contexts aspect of it is the "trunk" of that shape, and the Context-dependent aspect is the "branches" of that shape.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Verbal-symbolic skill(ers) get mathematical or physical dimensional space only in terms of the verbal_symbolic expression "Geometry".

Ones again Dimensional space is really known by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

Getting Dimensional space only in terms of visual_spatial skills does not hold exactly as getting Dimensional space only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills does not hold.
Click to expand...

Indeed geometry is a term, that you and your fantasy "Verbal-symbolic skill(ers)" apparently have no "visual_spatial skills" within that context of geometry is again simply your problem. Have better fantasies Doron or at least some more related to reality. Oh, and just for your edification just reading requires "visual_spatial skills" that we can relate to " verbal_symbolic skills". So everyone here is engaging in the skills you claim your fantasy "Verbal-symbolic skill(ers)" lack.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is not amazing at all how context-dependent-only skill(ers) (whether they get a given realm by verbal_symbolic-only skills or visual_spatial-only skills) can't get that the "host" (the atomic state) of a given mathematical or physical dimensional space is defined but not made of its "hosted" expressions, exactly as a 1-dimensional space is defined as non-local w.r.t all possible curvatures, but it is not made of these curvatures, exactly because they are localities w.r.t it (the 1-dimensional space is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a non-local atomic state) where no possible curvature is at-once at all possible curvatures (it is a local atomic state).
Click to expand...

Amazing!! So a singular possible curvature is not all possible curvatures (are there impossible curvatures?). Once again you simply belabor the trivial.

ETA:

Oh again for your edification try (though I've mentioned it before) Non-Euclidian Geometry. While in Euclidian geometry the curvature of a line is intrinsically an aspect of that line in Non-Euclidian Geometry it need not be (it can be an aspect of the space that line is imbedded within). Consider a straight line on the surface of a sphere. Please learn something Doron.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Finer than all thoughts is not itself a thought, exactly as silence is not itself a noise.

Exactly as one's attention is naturally aware of more and more excited levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it), one's attention is naturally aware of more and more calmer levels of mental activity (no matter what meaning is given to it).

At the calmest awareness one naturally transcends any mantel activity (any thoughts’ process) and actually aware of the source of space\time, which transcends space\time, where this awareness is naturally free of any mental activity (any thoughts’ process).

By actually use one's natural abilities to be aware of the space\time source without losing it during mental activity (during thoughts’ process), one's awareness is developed into Unity awareness, which enables to act in real harmony w.r.t other space\time expressions.

For example, please look at http://www.tm.org/blog/maharishi/transcendental-meditation-mantra/




One naturally gets space/time as all there is, as long as one does not actually transcendent it (there is no evidence of anything beyond space/time from space/time standpoint).
Click to expand...

Awareness is a mental activity, Doron. We are all well aware of your fantasy of being aware without any mental activity. Get some better fantasies Doron.
 
epix said:
Double-stupid me! The glorious moment hasn't arrived yet, coz Doronetics draws inspiration from elsewhere:
Click to expand...


Well he would certainly like to ascribe it as such, "non-local" to be inexact.

epix said:
In other words, the practice (of Doronetics) involves thinking of many words - words devoid of any meaning.
Click to expand...

Your direct perception is showing through epix.
 
doronshadmi said:
Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) can't transcendent the thinking process exactly because they are captured by meanings, where meanings are given only at the level of thoughts process.

The practice TM involves awareness beyond thoughts' process meaning.
Click to expand...


So once agian your assertions deliberately have no meaning, we already know that Doron.
 
doronshadmi said:
By Unity awareness, consciousness in varying degrees is actually many expressed levels of a one realm.

For example, verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) do not understand that thoughts and their related meanings are simply finer levels of consciousness, of the spoken.


The spoken level is realty aware of Unity only if silence is known during the spoken.
Click to expand...


Ah, so a deaf mute can't think! A man I work with would dispute that vehemently though non-verbally.

doronshadmi said:
Only by Unity awareness the spoken level fulfills its real meaning, where real meaning is archived only if it is an organ of a one unified framework, such that meanings are mutually developed (contradiction is naturally avoided among organs of a one unified realm).
Click to expand...

The meanings of words are mutually developed, any lexicographer will explain this to you or you can just open a dictionary, it is full of mutually developed visually spatial symbols with verbal meanings. Personal meanings, as in your case, lack the ability to communicate any meaning. Though given your previous post that is apparently your intent.
 
doronshadmi said:
Actually contradiction is the signature of the failure of the spoken level to be expressed without loosing the awareness of silence during the spoken expressions (verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) fulfill their limited skills by not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172).

(B.T.W the curvature at the red point is infinite, simply because by using Curvature as the essential concept, any given point has an infinite curvature)
Click to expand...

Nope, we have been over this before, a contradiction is simply a proposition that always evaluates to FALSE regardless of the truth values of its elements , like "belongs to AND does not belong to".
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's clarify the universality of Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.
Click to expand...

Oh, by all means, please, let's

doronshadmi said:
Some examples:

The expression "2 = 1+1" holds exactly because 2 is Cross-contexts w.r.t each 1, where each 1 is Context-dependent w.r.t 2, or in other words, "2 = 1+1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.
Click to expand...

Again what other context other than numerical values are you using your "2" in? Without any additional context once again nothing crosses any context in your " Cross-contexts".


doronshadmi said:
The expression "0 = 1-1" holds exactly because 0 is Cross-contexts w.r.t 1 or -1, where 1 or -1 are Context-dependent w.r.t 0, or in other words, "0 = 1-1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.
Click to expand...

Once again you cross no other contexts with your purported " Cross-contexts". Now you are simply confusing, deliberately, different numerical values with different contexts. Please at least learn the meaning of context.

doronshadmi said:
Please pay attention that being Cross-contexts is defined as the common state among several things, such that the sum of several things is first of all the common state among them.
Click to expand...

Please pay attention to the mutually developed meaning of the English word 'context'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context

doronshadmi said:
By following Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, 1-dimesional space as the sum of all possible curvatures along it, is Cross-contexts w.r.t all possible curvatures along it, where each possible curvature is Context-dependent w.r.t the 1-dimesional space.

So is the case of the concept of Dimensional space w.r.t the particular possible dimensional spaces, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular dimensional space is the common property of that concept.

So is the case of the concept of Set w.r.t the particular possible sets, it is Cross-contexts w.r.t them exactly because no particular set is the common property of that concept.

In other words, Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent is the universal framework of all possible frameworks.

By Cross-contexts “the top” of given Context-dependent boxes “is open”, which enables to gather them as a one comprehensive framework.
Click to expand...

Nope, as already noted just making up your own meanings for words makes you unable to communicate, stop being so lazy and learn what the words mean or come up with and define your own. Stop just stealing words for your own personal ill (if at all) defined meanings. As a liar and a thief for just your own personal goals makes your claims of any ethical system simply solipsistic.
 
Considering a 1-dimensional space on the surface of a sphere, demonstrates that 1-dimensional space and all curvature's degree of 1 and 2 dimensional spqaces, are both context-dependent aspects of the 2-dimensional space, which is the "host" Cross-context w.r.t all dimensional spaces < 2-dimensional space and all possible curvature's degrees that are related to all dimensional spaces <= 2-dimensional space.
 
Last edited:
We are all aware of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to get only the active aspect of awareness, but not its calm state, which is the natural source of any possible activity, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.
 
Last edited:
Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) are unable to get that deaf persons can think and also be aware of the calm level of awaeness even if thay can't hear the spoken level of awarness.

Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) can't get that the meaning of words fulfilled only by being aware of their silent source, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.

They do no understand that Lexicography or Dictionary are fulfilled only by being aware of the silent source of all possible expressions.
 
Last edited:
Again, contradiction is the mutual destruction of expressions, because of the lack of harmony among them, where harmony is actually achieved by being aware of their common calm source during their mutual expression.
 
Last edited:
The universality of Y shape (Cross-contexts AND Context dependent one framework) is not known by the limitation's awareness of verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers), or by any awareness that is based on dichtomy between these skills (Unity awareness is not fulfilled).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The expression "2 = 1+1" holds exactly because 2 is Cross-contexts w.r.t each 1, where each 1 is Context-dependent w.r.t 2, or in other words, "2 = 1+1" is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.
Click to expand...

Since + is the Greek cross, the writer's Unconscius has made an attempt to communicate with us through a linear scattergram where the true-valued statement implies, "It's all (math) greek to me."
 
Verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) understand Cross only in terms of the location of 0-dimesional space between two perpendicular 1-dimesional spaces, which are actually at AND not at this location (but the don't know this fact).

Once again some verbal_symbolic-only skill(er) demonstrates his inability to get the non-locality of 1-dimesional space w.r.t to 0-dimesional space, no matter what meaning is given to + symbol.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Considering a 1-dimensional space on the surface of a sphere, demonstrates that 1-dimensional space and all curvature's degree of 1 and 2 dimensional spqaces, are both context-dependent aspects of the 2-dimensional space, which is the "host" Cross-context w.r.t all dimensional spaces < 2-dimensional space and all possible curvature's degrees that are related to all dimensional spaces <= 2-dimensional space.
Click to expand...


Nope, a line can be curved in a way that the surface it is part of is not. This is clearly exemplified in Euclidian geometry. Learn some geometry, please, Doron.




doronshadmi said:
We are all aware of verbal_symbolic-only skill(ers) to get only the active aspect of awareness, but not its calm state, which is the natural source of any possible activity, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) are unable to get that deaf persons can think and also be aware of the calm level of awaeness even if thay can't hear the spoken level of awarness.

Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers) can't get that the meaning of words fulfilled only by being aware of their silent source, exactly as transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression.

They do no understand that Lexicography or Dictionary are fulfilled only by being aware of the silent source of all possible expressions.
Click to expand...

Once again whatever problems you have with your fantasy “Verbal_symbolic only skill(ers)” are simply yours. If your fantasies trouble you so much then have better fantasies Doron.




doronshadmi said:
Again, contradiction is the mutual destruction of expressions, because of the lack of harmony among them, where harmony is actually achieved by being aware of their common calm source during their mutual expression.
Click to expand...

Ah, so now your “harmony” makes your ‘contradictions’ vanish. As the later has not happened (your contradictions have not vanished) the former must not be true either (so you clearly lack any “harmony”). Here’s a hint, work on being more harmonious with yourself (agreeing with yourself) by specifically eliminating your self contradictions and then you won’t have to simply pretend either of those demonstrably false assertions are true.





doronshadmi said:
The universality of Y shape (Cross-contexts AND Context dependent one framework) is not known by the limitation's awareness of verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers), or by any awareness that is based on dichtomy between these skills (Unity awareness is not fulfilled).
Click to expand...


Let’s see, first you claim some “universality of Y shape” then immediately assert it “is not known by” some ‘limitation’ thus directly refuting your claim of any “universality of Y shape”. There’s your disharmony with yourself again Doron, no one can even possibly agree with you if you just can’t ever agree with just yourself. Stop being such a lazy, lying thief and learn what words like ‘universality’ mean, then you might finally be in harmony with not only just yourself but perhaps others as well.





doronshadmi said:
Some typo correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7769380&postcount=190 .

Instead of "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its fool expression."

it has to be "transparency is the natural source that enables each color its full expression."
Click to expand...


Nope, it is still just a “fool expression." Just to give to a hint “transparency” is the result of the least amount of interaction with photons (of say a particularly wavelength). Reflection and more specifically absorption are not the results of "transparency”.
 
Last edited:
Verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers) can't the universality of Y shape, which is actually Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is not less than the calm being as the natural source of all possible expressions, which actually enables the harmony among them, because they are organs of a one omnipresent realm.

Limited skill(ers) can't get the unified omnipresent calm source among expressions, and this ignorance prevent them to actually reach the natural harmony among these expressions as organs of the universal Y shape.

Here is some concrete example of their ignorance, as given by the following phrase:

"Nope, a line can be curved in a way that the surface it is part of is not."

In that case the ignorant skill(er) misses the fact that the curvatures of 1 or 2 dimensional spaces are the "branches" (context-dependent) of, for example, "trunk" (cross-contexts) 3 dimensional space, of the one organic universal Y shape.

Here’s a hint, the ignorant skill(er) has to work on being more harmonious with him\her self (where the self is the calm presence of awareness during expressions, which is exactly the universal Y one realm.

Also be aware of the fact that the ignorant skill(er) ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7773990&postcount=197 in order to hold his\her ignorant view about deaf persons' awareness.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Verbal_symbolic-only or visual_spatial-only skill(ers) can't the universality of Y shape, which is actually Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, which is not less than the calm being as the natural source of all possible expressions, which actually enables the harmony among them, because they are organs of a one omnipresent realm.

Limited skill(ers) can't get the unified omnipresent calm source among expressions, and this ignorance prevent them to actually reach the natural harmony among these expressions as organs of the universal Y shape.

Here is some concrete example of their ignorance, as given by the following phrase:

"Nope, a line can be curved in a way that the surface it is part of is not."

In that case the ignorant skill(er) misses the fact that the curvatures of 1 or 2 dimensional spaces are the "branches" (context-dependent) of, for example, "trunk" (cross-contexts) 3 dimensional space, of the one organic universal Y shape.

Here’s a hint, the ignorant skill(er) has to work on being more harmonious with him\her self (where the self is the calm presence of awareness during expressions, which is exactly the universal Y one realm.

Also be aware of the fact that the ignorant skill(er) ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7773990&postcount=197 in order to hold his\her ignorant view about deaf persons' awareness.
Click to expand...



So once again you simply claim your “universality of Y shape” isn’t, well, universal. That your demonstrable disharmony with just yourself is so obvious to just about anyone but you exemplifies how utterly useless your notions are at anything other than just hiding your disharmony from yourself. Seek professional physiological help Doron, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom