Research carried out by myself tells me that at the source, reason and difference are the same; because of this, I think that perhaps the point of existence is to separate the two, but to do so without betraying principle.

 

The principle is to not duplicate anything; reason being the removed means that it can't be the remover, the same applying to difference.

Neither reason or difference can separate themselves, and so the removing force must be neither reason or difference.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by marieltrokan

Research carried out by myself tells me that at the source, reason and difference are the same; because of this, I think that perhaps the point of existence is to separate the two, but to do so without betraying principle.

 

The principle is to not duplicate anything; reason being the removed means that it can't be the remover, the same applying to difference.

Neither reason or difference can separate themselves, and so the removing force must be neither reason or difference.

Is that word salad?

No. The topic is the opposite of reality, so of course any attempts at representation will inevitably mean the kind of reaction you gave.

The source being difference is inherent error, therefore the point is to convert reason without committing the error of duplication.

Research carried out by myself tells me that at the source, reason and difference are the same

 

 

What is "the source"?

 

Can you explain what you mean by "reason" and "difference"? And how they can possibly be the same thing. One is a method of thought, employing logic. The other is a statement of the inequality of two things.

 

Because saying they are the same sounds similar to saying that elephants and the colour blue are the same. I think this is known in philosophy, as a category error.

The source being difference is inherent error, therefore the point is to convert reason without committing the error of duplication.

 

I think a part of the problem is that English is not your native language. That sentence makes no sense, I'm afraid.

The source of existence. Why reality exists.

The link between reason and difference is a deduction in a long line of deductions made by myself, through months research; another deduction is that need and power are identical - because need is the power to be something, power (or reason) in of itself is problematic in that its actual meaning conflicts with its intended meaning.

 

Latest data suggests that absence is the signifier of co-existence and the state of co-existence being separate, presence being the opposite.

I think the part about not duplicating reason in the process of making it no error is clear.

The source of existence. Why reality exists.

 

 

What if there is no such thing?

 

The link between reason and difference

 

Can you define exactly what you mean by "reason" and "difference" in this context? Without such a definition, this statement has no meaning.

 

another deduction is that need and power are identical - because need is the power to be something, power (or reason) in of itself is problematic in that its actual meaning conflicts with its intended meaning.

 

So someone who is starving to death in a country struck by famine has great power because of their need for food? That doesn't seem to make sense.

Latest data suggests that absence is the signifier of co-existence

 

What data is this? Please cite your sources.

I think the part about not duplicating reason in the process of making it no error is clear.

 

 

I'm afraid I can't parse the grammar of that statement. "not duplicating reason"? "making it no error"?

Philosophy bot?

Philosophy bot?

 

 

Could we ever know?

There are no sources to cite, because the research is my own (notebooks of deductive reasoning).

 

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by marieltrokan

The source of existence. Why reality exists.

The link between reason and difference is a deduction in a long line of deductions made by myself, through months research; another deduction is that need and power are identical - because need is the power to be something, power (or reason) in of itself is problematic in that its actual meaning conflicts with its intended meaning.

 

Latest data suggests that absence is the signifier of co-existence and the state of co-existence being separate, presence being the opposite.

I think the part about not duplicating reason in the process of making it no error is clear.

Second helping of word salad.

Clearly, reason and difference are not the same word. What do you mean by the same, same language (yes), same part of speech (nouns, yes), in what other ways are they the same, and in what ways are they different?

There are no sources to cite, because the research is my own (notebooks of deductive reasoning).

 

 

Then there is no data.

There are no sources to cite, because the research is my own (notebooks of deductive reasoning).

 

 

!

Moderator Note

marieltrokan, you are using non-standard definitions to explain why reality exists, making it very difficult to understand. You aren't using any kind of science, and though this is our Philosophy section, we require more logic and rigor in our discussions, even on so airy a topic. There is no point in guesswork.

 

Your posts need clarity. Several people have asked for it, and if you can't show some evidence to support your ideas, or a chain of logic we can follow to assess its validity and soundness, this thread will have to be closed.

 

No need to respond to this modnote here in the thread, since this is part of our rules, but you can Report it if you object to it.

I have used science. Close the thread if you want.

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by marieltrokan

I have used science.

Really?

Where?

What science did you use, specifically; reference at least one paper, please. If you can't give a reference, you didn't use science.

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by EdEarl

Throughout the months I've spent using deductive logic, or scientific thought.

The only materials I can reference are books of notes, based on deductive reasoning - and that's what I've been doing on this page.

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by marieltrokan

Throughout the months I've spent using deductive logic, or scientific thought.

The only materials I can reference are books of notes, based on deductive reasoning - and that's what I've been doing on this page.

 

 

Science is the process of (1) creating a testable hypothesis and (2) testing the hypothesis through observation or experiment. You do not appear to have done either of these, so you are not doing science.

 

You might be doing philosophy, but you need to explain your ideas better. But you seem strangely unwilling to do that.

 

So, again: please explain precisely what you mean by "reason" and "difference" (as you seem to be using these words in a way that does not make sense in English).

Is that word salad?

 

 

Yep, with a philosophical dressing...Yummy

Truth can't be represented. The topic of my research has been the opposite of reality (or the source of existence).

I wouldn't call it philosophy, because philosophy is reality.

 

Reason and difference are exactly what anyone would think of them: my aim is to separate reason from difference without committing the error of reason or difference existing more than once - that's what I mean, about truth being anti-representation (to be truth means to be anti-existence, which is what representation requires).

 

The latest data is that the need of reason is to act, but the problem is that to act means to duplicate need.

Deductive reasoning is a process that is easy to document. State your premises and show us how you reached the conclusion that reason and difference are the same. If you cannot, you didn't use deductive reasoning.

I wouldn't call it philosophy, because philosophy is reality.

 

 

And reality makes sense?

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by dimreepr

Early philosophers believed earth, air, fire and water were elements that made everything. It is not reality. Philosophical thought does not always produce realistic conclusions.

The research I've carried out isn't philosophy.

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by marieltrokan

The meaning of life is your choice; cheating that is just pretending to understand.

Damn it, I should have quoted, editing after the fact is also cheating.