darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Encircling the world is a trace; not like dotting a dot more like dotting a circle; you cannot define using only your word, what Earth objective is, only trace the Earth, so the objective is higher than word. Mana The universe is a state of non existecne that is a higher power; traces continue to upgrade until the universe; existent entities, are all that exist, the universe is non-existent.na Around the time of nothing is a chance of something, and when there is nothing, that is law. Existent pricinples are something oppose to nothing, where this law is regarded; hence space and matter, so space is a matter paradox of existent principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 You obviously wrote this in a different language and put it through Google translate or something. Unfortunately all sense has been taken out of it in translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) I have suggested morality is impossible to word (you'll never explain it) because it is higher than word; it's a trace back to more than 1, a cubic shape. And don't get all timecube insane because I've mentioned a cube. And you can explain a cube in the same manner as you can explain green, nothing like it; equal to mutilation of the mind. If you're saying what a cube is, you're saying words 1 by 1 to associate with sided object you can comprehend cubically, so it's still a misconception. Edited October 23, 2018 by darkjepetto -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: I have suggested morality is impossible to word (you'll never explain it) Your first post didn't mention morality at all. Morality may be hard to define, but saying it is "impossible to word" is going too far. 14 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: And don't get all timecube insane because I've mentioned a cube. It is more the fact that you write incoherent drivel, than the use of the word "cube". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 Ironically the only backing to your token 'drivel' bark is your social advantage! -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Ironically the only backing to your token 'drivel' bark is your social advantage! Ironically... it's your job to make sense. Edited October 23, 2018 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 1 hour ago, darkjepetto said: If you're saying what a cube is, you're saying words 1 by 1 to associate with sided object you can comprehend cubically, so it's still a misconception. A cube is well defined. Language (English and most other language I am aware of) is the tool we use to communicate this meaning - words are used to build this explanation. We can clearly and precisely define a cube using words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, DrP said: A cube is well defined. Language (English and most other language I am aware of) is the tool we use to communicate this meaning - words are used to build this explanation. We can clearly and precisely define a cube using words. No, you can't. If you can clearly and precisely define a cube using words, why didn't you provide an explanation as an example? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: No, you can't. If you can clearly and precisely define a cube using words, why didn't you provide an explanation as an example? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cube 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 "the regular solid of six equal square sides" - It says it's the regular solid of six equal sides, but there are other regular objects such as a hexagon. How is this a cube and not an mental abstraction of a cube referring to a cube in your memory? It's certainly not a drawing of a cube, which would have the same effect. When pitted against a drawing of a cube, it's a rounded off definition that's inaccruate. 'A solid', doesn't define a cube accurately, a cube can be a frame of 12 edges. If I was inside a cube, it would also have a top and bottom; so again, how does the word describe cubes definitely? The definition is weak in comparison to the stronger cube image, either real or fabricated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: there are other regular objects such as a hexagon. A hexagon isn’t a solid 17 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: a cube can be a frame of 12 edges. Says the man who says it isn’t possible to describe a cube 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) No, I said it's impossible to define a cube with word, not describe a cube with word (descrptions are in reference to objects not words). Edited October 23, 2018 by darkjepetto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 ! Moderator Note I'm not sure why this is posted to the Lounge, nor is it clear to me where this is supposed to be going. You need to do a better job of explaining what it is you wish to discuss 6 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: No, I said it's impossible to define a cube with word, not describe a cube with word (descrptions are in reference to objects not words). ! Moderator Note Semantic trivialities will not help in making your case to keep the thread open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 Close it then. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 17 hours ago, darkjepetto said: No, you can't. Oh yes you can!.... oooh goody - is it pantomime season already? 17 hours ago, darkjepetto said: It says it's the regular solid of six equal sides No it doesn't - it says 'six equal square sides'. which pretty much defines a cubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, DrP said: Oh yes you can!.... oooh goody - is it pantomime season already? No it doesn't - it says 'six equal square sides'. which pretty much defines a cubes. Fine, I was wrong, you can define a cube... Nothing extroadinary, my other points still stand, in fact, it was a secondary point. Cubes aren't super-massive, but the Earth is, so cubes can be defined, but Earth cannot. You can't word a circle in one word, you can word an abstraction of a circle in one word. Metaphorically a trace is, where a circle must be drawn over a dot dotted on paper, it cannot be compressed into a single word but instead a whole action must be completed. A single word is metaphorically a dot, and morality, being metaphorically like drawing a circle, can't be defined in a single, defining statement. You draw a circle, and then dot it to define it, abstracting the circle. Encirlcing the planet in your imagination is like drawing a circle, and then you dot it to define Earth, fine, abstracting the planet. Morality is based on the planet, which is encircling the planet, but without the dot for a definition; so what is the definition without a dot? Morality is the planet objective, which is minute in comparrison to massive planet, which can't be defined in word. Edited October 24, 2018 by darkjepetto -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 26 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Morality is the planet objective, which is minute in comparrison to massive planet, which can't be defined in word. Indifference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 36 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Morality is the planet objective I'm fairly sure planets don't care about morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 37 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Cubes aren't super-massive, but the Earth is, so cubes can be defined, but Earth cannot. You can't word a circle in one word, you can word an abstraction of a circle in one word. Metaphorically a trace is, where a circle must be drawn over a dot dotted on paper, it cannot be compressed into a single word but instead a whole action must be completed. A single word is metaphorically a dot, and morality, being metaphorically like drawing a circle, can't be defined in a single, defining statement. You draw a circle, and then dot it to define it, abstracting the circle. Encirlcing the planet in your imagination is like drawing a circle, and then you dot it to define Earth, fine, abstracting the planet. Morality is based on the planet, which is encircling the planet, but without the dot for a definition; so what is the definition without a dot? Morality is the planet objective, which is minute in comparrison to massive planet, which can't be defined in word. I'm afraid we are slipping back to the nonsensical again. 40 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: Morality is based on the planet, which is encircling the planet, but without the dot for a definition; so what is the definition without a dot? Morality is the planet objective, which is minute in comparrison to massive planet, which can't be defined in word. I think you MUST know that this doesn't make any sense. Unless English is not your first language and you are trying to get some other point across - I sort of think that you are just making it up though for some sort of trolling game. You KNOW what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Read it back to yourself. Bye. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) You've dotted the spherical planet to define it. Metaphorically, this is equal to naming that massive geoid we live upon as a 'sphere' (rather than dot, 'sphere'). The planet defines itself, and not knowing that is deterimental to your mental health. So you're born on a planet, you ask "What am I meant to do?", and the answer to that question is 'the planet objective'. What is 'here'? 'Here' isn't a point in space, space is nothing; 'here' is the planet. What are we supposed to do here? Not space fantasy, maybe space travel if pointful. We're supposed to minutely follow the planet objective, which is more a sensory procedure than a verbal discussion. Edited October 24, 2018 by darkjepetto -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 17 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: You've dotted the spherical planet to define it. Metaphorically, this is equal to naming that massive geoid we live upon as a 'sphere' (rather than dot, 'sphere'). You can't understand what the planet objective is if you go by the word 'sphere'; however, you can understand what the planet objective is if you go by the wordless (cubic) planet. The planet is a progression of time, as are all people on the planet. If we lost our individuality for a second, and thought that we were just fragments of the entire planet, then everything is either beneficent or maleficent to a planet-wide objective. 3 Do you want to discuss Gaia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjepetto Posted October 24, 2018 Author Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) The planet objective is like the humans, in the way that he is like the planet. Evil is an alternative. There is no reason to describe he or she when sharing a lesson about people, he is a word that can describe something for a female as well, in the above example, we use he to communicate something for both genders, and the same applies to planet when planet to human communication occurs. Humans and the planet share a bond; what humans need to do and want to do can be achieved more greatly with the planet. semi-omni-spherical processing, Atomic 2, not Atomic 1, omni sperical processing; our universe is a low-frequency hell-zone, a constellation of stars that are half the universe potential of another less strenious star constellation. Edited October 24, 2018 by darkjepetto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, darkjepetto said: The planet objective is like the humans, in the way that he is like the planet. Evil is an alternative. There is no reason to describe he or she when sharing a lesson about people, he is a word that can describe something for a female as well, in the above example, we use he to communicate something for both genders, and the same applies to planet when planet to human communication occurs. Omni-spherical processing. 1 I guess making sense, isn't your objective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 On 10/23/2018 at 12:38 PM, darkjepetto said: Close it then. ! Moderator Note Roger that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts