#n01

Basil Hugh Hall

Then nothing existed before the appearance of language and thus the appearance of Homo?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)

#n02

No, it is not that nothing existed any time before or not, or that they exist now or not. The idea that it is, is the universal error that is the meaning or word denial that is the mayhem.

"Existence" is a linguistic dichotomy, and both its extremes and relative value are the universal fallacy. Everything is word like a wave of archetype mythology, and its dualistic meaning is ontological, namely that humans believe meta-fundamentalistically or as concretely as anything (imagination, text and reality, body and spirit) that things exist or not. Ontological language is the formal, normal and natural language. Existence is THE item of faith. Even belief in God is about His "existence."

https://www.facebook.com/groups/pointi/permalink/439783503725531

#n03

Do we use our eyes to see the world outside, including the other's inside? Not even yes or no. That we do (or not) is the abysmal error. The ontological explanation for word as meaning by function is the self-contradictory self-deceptive psyche, fallacious logic and mental disorderly mind always ascribed to the other, including the self about itself... that are the mayhem.

#n04

God (God's existence) is a massive error obfuscating the universal error of its abysmally "holy" grounding: Existence.

So too spiritual enlightenment or being woke as the zombie, junkie and fashionable crazie newspeak for slavishly getting behind (in-line) the abysmally holy imperialistic totalitarian globalist social justice bullshit.

#n05

Soth de Witan

Pierre, are you opposed to the theory of relativity? How about the uncertainty principle? Just curious to know your views (which are not yours).

The question is the problem of force as the wizardly bullshit of equal and opposite forces in that it sets up not only me, but everything as wave thereby constituting the world as asymmetrically opposed to something, i.e., "dynamic" in personal opposition to anyone who supports it and also in anthropomorphicaly personified cybernetic synthesis with it as if everything is beyond word, opportunistically as either wave or particle(thing), opportunistically doing their thing on each other.

The error of the ontological syllogism supposedly uttered (by chronic logical deduction and induction resulting in — fashionable-cool zombie-junkie-crazie's meditating reduction — holy farce or zen) is the presumptuousness, the ego-self, namely the bottomlessly phenomenologically regressive (Husserl woke) semantic integral—the abyss as if it is not a hole but holy—of seeing myself, or the endlessly slippery rhetorical intersubjective field that "I am," namely not only me, subject-also-object but by chronic repetition supposedly also the other, object-also-subject.

It is a logic by which society is as if being woke ultimately a cesspool of sheer mendacity persistently smeared over with the intoxicated dissection kindness to counter the pathetic fallenness of the other human emotions set up as if in juxtaposition with the dissection "existence" now, that it is three-dimensional.

The error is not relativity or uncertainty, but the cancer of utter fundamentalism: that it also exists.

#n06

The idea that it is anyone's views or not is the bullshit, especially the last-gasp scientific-ontological notion that it derives in "self-organization."

Or the spiritual equivalent, the unity mind of nothingness fullness, the infinite ocean.

#n07

The error is existence and ontology.

3d is error, not as such (word) but as more than word, namely as the traditional spacetime geometry governed by force over time, or the self-organization of the plane persistence integrating the plane existence. Or any such bullshit deduction-or-induction with holy reduction that it is not only meaning (word) but also exists.

#n08

Soth de Witan

Meaning is man-made? No man, no meaning?

No, if everything is word, meaning is not man-made or not. And no man, no meaning. The universal error is the mutual nonsense of explanations why and how beyond meaning of what things are as that they are made by having and doing each other. The error is also exactly the authoritarian brutishness of ontology and existence as force power and control that the mayhem is man's making, rather than that everything is something, i.e., word. The idea that everything is or is not (exists or exists not) is the error that is the mayhem.

#n09

Soth de Witan

'Force' means 'force'? No-one does or has it?........and the same for authoritarian brutishness, control and all words?

If everything is word, like everything else, language is something, which is word. That it does something like "means" is non-word assumption and presumption. So if the point is point-i, that everything is word, yes, any word is word. If the point is that it exists, that is word as the self-contradiction that is the mayhem.

#n10

Existence is the sacred item of faith, far more even than the idea of free will or agency.

From the point of view of existence, point-i (the idea that everything is word incl. existence...thus word self-contradiction) is a far more difficult concept to grasp than the idea that we consist of light-waves cross-interfering with each other forming standing waves relative to the speed of light (with circular turbulence) as matter and have no free will or even volition.

#n11

Furthermore deduction and belief are virtually synonyms and any common ground or word-by-conversation between agents is primarily deduction (propped up with induction and its metaphysical wing of sacred imagination: reduction). It is an endless riddling of nonsense.