"Fact" And "Fiction" Intersection (Anything Is Possible)

[GomeGabrielDavid]

Is a tip infinitely small?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Is a tip finite?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         A tip is finite and infinite.

A tip is where the definition of limitation and infinity intersect, where fiction (inasmuch as properly defined limitation and properly define infinity) and fact (inasmuch as properly defined limitation and properly defined infinity) intersect. Now “if” fact be white and fiction be black (patience), an intersection would not be grey… because both share location. Now possibilities are unconditional, and impossibilities are unconditional (just as fact and fiction share location, likewise). “If” you were to establish a life free of suffering someone could as easily make you suffer during lack of suffering, since this is a condition. And because it is unconditional it must also be conditional, because conditionality is a condition unconditionality must be. Likewise, limitation is impossible. But because this would be a limitation (impossibility being a limitation and lack of one being a law, hence limitation), it is also untrue.

 Is location of finite size?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Is an infinitely small location within such a finite location?

Now anything (fact and contradiction) is possible and anything (fact and contradiction) is impossible (both simultaneously [as aforementioned] and apart [as mentioned “if” limitation were NOT infinity and vice-versa). For example, a minute of time contains infinite fractions... what is fast and what is slow and what is normal. Therefore I am convinced time travel is possible.

Another example is that a limitation contains infinite fractions (should a limitation contain finite fractions? It is therefore infinite and finite).

NOW “if” you desire control, initiate it.

Energy is matter (vice-versa)

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Yet consider another can intercept you, because there is a breed of matter which delights in applying kryptonite. Beware of those who will take advantage of your patterns, call them stupid for noticing them (I don't know). Change it up a bit.

Happy enlightenment. Stay calculating, have mercy "if" it is within you, and become polysemous. DO NOT WASTE YOUR FUCKING LIFE or trust me.

I love you
 

Edited March 20, 2018 by GomeGabrielDavid
what

[Joseph Maynor]

Ask yourself this — what is truth?  What is falsity?  

Edited March 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

In my experience, so-called truth and false are a mere outcome of assuming a fixed perspective.
The more I contemplate truth and false, the more I'm certain that there always exists a perspective from which mutually exclusive statements are indistinguishable. Any (geometric) point is in this sense infinite(ly small).

Spatial perspective is a good metaphor for a logical perspective.

Any angle you may assume in observing a physical apple will obstruct its other side.
Saying that you see the truth of an apple is like saying that the other side is never experienced.
Two people may see an apple from different angles and both claim that they see the truth which is obviously false.
Still, they both always experience their own side of an apple and will never experience the other side that they don't see. Even if they move, they will see only the side that they see - the other will be obstructed. In this sense, they both see the truth of an apple and it is obviously true.

So yes, two statements can be both exclusive and true at the same time.

What prevents one from moving around an apple is the need for stability in life. Once you start to pick your assumptions apart - there is nothing to hold on to. Consistency of truth is an expression of Ego.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by tsuki

[Joseph Maynor]

How about this view?  Truth and falsity is a dualistic model that has more or less application depending on the context, but in no way does reality adhere to being modeled in this binary manner through and through.  That would be a form of theoretical idealism — of mistaking the map for the territory.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

8 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

How about this view?  Truth and falsity is a dualistic model that has more or less application depending on the context, but in no way does reality adhere to being modeled in this binary manner through and through.  That would be a form of theoretical idealism — of mistaking the map for the territory.

This view is truthful in a sense that it says nothing. It cancels itself out without producing a conclusion.
What I see it saying is that everything is true until it becomes false. That it is ok to make models as long as they work, but once they stop - you throw them away.

Your statement is also a model that breaks down once you start to apply it to itself. Should I still be using it, or did it already wear out?

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, tsuki said:

This view is truthful in a sense that it says nothing. It cancels itself out without producing a conclusion.
What I see it saying is that everything is true until it becomes false. That it is ok to make models as long as they work, but once they stop - you throw them away.

Your statement is also a model that breaks down once you start to apply it to itself. Should I still be using it, or did it already wear out?

If that’s my view and it works for me, why do you so hastily allege that it breaks-down and “says nothing”?  If it’s worthless, why would I retain it and express it here as my view?  I’m a smart guy, right?   I majored in Philosophy in college.  Surely I have something valuable to add here, at least to me.  A better response from you might have been a request for an example, or a clarification, not an outright dismissal of my view.  

Edited March 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

If that’s my view and it works for me, why do you so hastily allege that it breaks down?  If it’s worthless, why would I retain it and express it as my view?  I’m a smart guy, right?  Surely I have something valuable here, at least to me.  A better response from you might have been a request for an example, or a clarification, not an outright dismissal of my view.  

Hey, no need to get upset. I'm not saying that you are not smart. Nor am I saying that I'm smarter.

It is not a dismissal of your view. I agree with it. It is the only consistent model - a model of no models. A paradox that directly expresses the nature of reality. I will even go as far as to say that it is poetic in a sense. It shows how falsity is present in any truth.

Sorry for offending you.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by tsuki