The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

You're up, slugger. I encourage you to explain what you think it "meas".

Instead of use your energy about my typos, try to use it in order to understand the simple fact that fixed means stable and movable means unstable.

No expertise is needed here, and the rest of your post is your unnecessary attitude to take simple things and make them complicated.

, ignore the actual use of the terms by those who understand their meanings

As for the word understand it also demonstrates how stability is needed as the foundation of a standing thing.

 

[bruto]

Instead of use your energy about my typos, try to use it in order to understand the simple fact that fixed means stable and movable means unstable.

No expertise is needed here, and the rest of your post is your unnecessary attitude to take simple things and make them complicated.



As for the word understand it also demonstrates how stability is needed as the foundation of a standing thing.

But fixed does not mean stable, and movable does not mean unstable. At least not in standard English. A moving thing can be stable or unstable insofar as it resists change in its established motion and direction.

By your definition, if, as many believe, everything in the universe is in motion, then there could be no stability of any kind anywhere.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Instead of use your energy about my typos, try to use it in order to understand the simple fact that fixed means stable and movable means unstable.

Not unless you are speaking, for instance, bethekese. In English, they do not share definitions, connotations, or implications. See the post with definitions.

No expertise is needed here, and the rest of your post is your unnecessary attitude to take simple things and make them complicated.

Wait.

It is, in fact, you who are equivocating words.

As for the word understand it also demonstrates how stability is needed as the foundation of a standing thing.

...and it continues. You are incorrect about the etymology of "understand". It has nothing to do with "under", or "beneath". It developed, instead, from the proto-Germanic "inter" (between); it means, instead, to apprehend, or to be aware of. It has no implication of stability, or instability, or movability, or immovability (neither stator nor motor).

Feel free to keep digging.

 

[bruto]

Not unless you are speaking, for instance, bethekese. .....

No, I think its a unique Doronic dialect.

I doubt it's bethekese, because if by some unfortunate circumstance Mr. Doronshadmi were to set foot in the prophet's bailiwick, he would probably be declared fit only for burning at the stake. If a Rosetta stone existed, Mr. Bethke would probably pick it up and hit Mr. Shadmi over the head with it. The awesome unity of the universe would give way, I fear, to a blunt lesson in leverage.

There just ain't no cosmic love over there.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No, I think its a unique Doronic dialect.

I doubt it's bethekese, because if by some unfortunate circumstance Mr. Doronshadmi were to set foot in the prophet's bailiwick, he would probably be declared fit only for burning at the stake. If a Rosetta stone existed, Mr. Bethke would probably pick it up and hit Mr. Shadmi over the head with it. The awesome unity of the universe would give way, I fear, to a blunt lesson in leverage.

There just ain't no cosmic love over there.

I stand corrected. I supposed that bethekese and doronitian were, at least, cognates.

My bad.

 

[doronshadmi]

...and it continues. You are incorrect about the etymology of "understand". It has nothing to do with "under", or "beneath". It developed, instead, from the proto-Germanic "inter" (between); it means, instead, to apprehend, or to be aware of. It has no implication of stability, or instability, or movability, or immovability (neither stator nor motor).

Feel free to keep digging.

The best conditions in order to be aware of any possible degree of movement is simply to be stable.

So also by proto-Germanic at least stability AND instability are involved.

And indeed reality can't be understood without Nature's constants (the non-changing or stable) AND Nature's variables (the changing or unstable).

 

[doronshadmi]

By your definition, if, as many believe, everything in the universe is in motion, then there could be no stability of any kind anywhere.

Once again you are using narrow view of stable AND unstable.

In order to get out of this narrow view, try Nature's constants (the non-changing or stable) AND Nature's variables (the changing or unstable) view of reality.

 

[bruto]

Once again you are using narrow view of stable AND unstable.

In order to get out of this narrow view, try Nature's constants (the non-changing or stable) AND Nature's variables (the changing or unstable) view of reality.

But you just said stable means not moving. Plant that goalpost somewhere.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The best conditions in order to be aware of any possible degree of movement is simply to be stable.

So also by proto-Germanic at least stability AND instability are involved.

And indeed reality can't be understood without Nature's constants (the non-changing or stable) AND Nature's variables (the changing or unstable).

No.

"Between" does not support your (mistaken) claim that the kernel, the core, the essence vitale, is, or includes,the concept of "foundation".

You are the unique source of "stability" and "instability" as "Nature's constants".

Your version of "reality" is predicated upon your own, personal, idiosyncratic and incorrect, thematic vocabulary.

Have you managed to find anyone else who (mis)uses "stability" and "instability" to explain the function of any class, or any kind, of lever?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Once again you are using narrow view of stable AND unstable.

In order to get out of this narrow view, try Nature's constants (the non-changing or stable) AND Nature's variables (the changing or unstable) view of reality.

Source?

Evidence?

 

[doronshadmi]

But you just said stable means not moving.

Where moving is an expression of changing thing.

It is very simple, unless you try to give different meanings to moving, changing, unstable etc.

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

Yes.

The best condition in order to be aware of any possible degree of movement, is to observe it from stable point of view.

This is simple, and your complications are not going to change it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Source?

Evidence?

Very simple.

Take for example the Pythagorean theorem: c² = a² + b²
c² is the constant where a² and b² are its complement variables (for example: large force over a small distance + small force over large distance).

Now take the lever's principle:

Force and distance are equivalent to the right side of the equation, where the fulcrum is equivalent to the left side of the equation.

 

[asydhouse]

Hussy, you must have one of those open minds that dress in skimpy logic and tries to seduce religious minds from their beliefs.

And yet it's the religions dressing up in skimpy logic that has captured the stunned minds of the believers… they truly are in thrall to the Great Whore of the Church (as I believe the Catholic was styled by some Protestant or other, but I could be wrong… the Ayatollah similarly described the USA, I believe)… all religions share this basic mesmerising glamour, anyway.

 

[asydhouse]

How transparently you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334.


My claim is very simple, our reality is at least stable AND unstable, and this principle is found also among levers.

You are still missing what can easily be found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10156505&postcount=347 and its links.


Please do not force your misinterpretation of what I actually say, on me. As long as you do that you are simply in misinterpretation-loop with yourself, which leads to nowhere.

Oh please!


You are making yourself look worse and worse the longer you persist in this ragged metaphor. It's almost as if you are more concerned with insisting on pushing a rubbish metaphor than you are with actually communicating the meaning you are supposedly trying to get across.

You are so invested in the metaphor that you can't acknowledge the faulty use of the English language that you are engaged in with your metaphor. We have descended to quoting dictionary definitions, and you still refuse to acknowledge that your metaphor is inept, and inapt.

Rather than berating us for not accepting your faulty metaphor, you should be letting go of it and recognising your mistake, and searching for a new and better way to express what you are supposedly trying to get across to us.

The fact that you are stuck defending a faulty metaphor shows that your thinking is ossifying into dogmatic repetitions, you're on the loop you ascribed to Slowvehicle above… but you can't see it!

As a demonstration of the value of your chosen spiritual practice, you are failing.

 

[asydhouse]

I know what it means, the problem is that you don't know what it meas.

And since you are the one trying to make your meaning clear (or you should be, or else you should just bugger off) then this is by definition your problem.

Well, you have problems to understand that fixed means stable and movable means unstable.

And here you are again dogmatically refusing to acknowledge that these words are not synonyms!

 

[asydhouse]

Very simple.

Take for example the Pythagorean theorem: c² = a² + b²
c² is the constant where a² and b² are its complement variables (for example: large force over a small distance + small force over large distance).

Now take the lever's principle:

Force and distance are equivalent to the right side of the equation, where the fulcrum is equivalent to the left side of the equation.

Well, since algebra can be depicted with geometry, I suppose there might be an application of the Pythagorean theorem to the physics of levers, but it's news to me.

Specifically, I see no reason to ascribe to c² the property of being constant. In calculating the lengths of the sides of a right-angle triangle (which is what the theorem is about) you will find that if any of the sides changes, c also changes… not what I'd call a constant!

You would need to explicate this concept quite a bit more for it to make any sense to me.

 

[doronshadmi]

And here you are again dogmatically refusing to acknowledge that these words are not synonyms!

They are synonyms.

If you disagree with me, than please demonstrate a given system where its fixed aspect is not also its stable aspect.

Be aware of the fact that it has to be demonstrated within the borders of the given system.

Here is again a concrete example of how stability AND instability are principles that found within the borders of any given scale of our universe:

The best way to understand it is to look at the whole universe as the machine itself.

From this mechanical comprehensive point of view, the fulcrum of a given lever that is located along the Equator of planet Earth, is more stable than the endpoints of a given pole along it, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Earth.

The fulcrum at the center of the earth is more stable than the fulcrum of that given lever, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Sun.

the fulcrum at the center of the Sun is more stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Earth, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Milky-way galaxy.

The symmetry at the basis of our universe is more stable than any asymmetric phenomena like the acceleration of galaxies and clusters of galaxies all over the observed universe.

So within our universe, there are different scale levels, where within the border of each scale level there is both stability AND instability, or in other word this pair exists independently of any given scale.

 

[doronshadmi]

Specifically, I see no reason to ascribe to c² the property of being constant. In calculating the lengths of the sides of a right-angle triangle (which is what the theorem is about) you will find that if any of the sides changes, c also changes… not what I'd call a constant!

You would need to explicate this concept quite a bit more for it to make any sense to me.

Very simple, instead to think about smaller or bigger right-angle triangles, please think about the fact the area on c remains unchanged during the changes of the complements areas on a and b.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh please!


You are making yourself look worse and worse

No, I simply disagree that fixed, non-changing, stable, constant are not synonyms, within a given system.

Our universe is such system, no matter what scale level of it is examined, the pair stability AND instability is found, exactly as no matter what right-angle triangles sizes are examined according to Pythagorean theorem, the area on c remains unchanged (it is fixed, constant, stable, etc.) during the changes (the non-fixed, non-constant, non-stable, etc.) of the complements areas on a and b.