Duality Becoming-Time

Yes, the act of philosophizing is something that may be performed for its intrinsic value, like the recreational solving of puzzles or the creation of art. Such acts that may or may not have extrinsic value as in coping with practical matters.

Does discussion also partly involve making an argument in favor of a position?

logically it is impossible for freedom to b another nor recognize another freedom existing, especially when freedom need to b fully existing for each mean or perspective intrinsically as basically n superficially that is all it is there

to keep it objective reasonning, so logical ends of freedom being existence truth, is infinite freedom each intelligent alone always,

again stayin objective more, freedom reality as the end of infinite freedom that must each realize smthg or deal with realizing or reality to get out from recognizin abstractly the existence of else freedom as not only its fact own one, so anything objective just to stay in peace free alone but in clearly recognizing that yea im not alone free in principle it is to truth

now leavin objective the fact and mean objective concept to picture better the fact and its freedom too so its roofs u could guess

discussions are always meaning more isolations and separations of wills to b together one, impossible pursuit that objective facts keep takin advantage of it to get to its true objective fact

so logically as a reply to ur question, discussion doesnt end necessarily by a standin position, since truth immediately isolate the willin then that one would found its stand certainty already done so wont need it
that is how the end of discussion which the start of discussing smthg way, is logically by denyin the other argument so makin the devil present of its random intelligence of rejections that look superior or commonly existing

but what i meant there is not to reply for discussion but a crucial point that me only recognize, so lets start to say clearly in words what my logics end up to totally opposed to ur ends

when freedom being existence truth and true relations is impossible objective, then reality would b relative to intelligence superiority in dealin with that fact objectively

i didnt say anything yet of my own logical ways ends from where i start

while u are all there, standin individually enjoyin the relative knowledge of truth and the abstract superior realisation regardin another or others as objective constance u keep from truth recognitions giving u like a perspective sense of knowing the objective share and position

for me i cant get that b really happenin it is too stupid impossible how can it b repeated like that

so i turn my head with disgust and rejection without meanin smthg else since there is no sense when objective is through nonsense

but i find out that i cant go anywhere else even by rejectin being, im still there have to deal with that constant too so meaning the constance fact at some clear points that need smtg to b at the right standard of existence at least zero constance standard, i accidentally do another way of objective constance abstraction which lead to another concept of objective perspectives

for me, when freedom is true existence then ur own move is the exclusive one move, so u cant get anything from standin there and pretendin being more intelligent then the other or others in knowin that noone can b else in anyterms, knowing about the useless void pursuit
for me it is more stupid when u know the fact to act as if u can gain from that knowledge
knowin the fact cant but lead to one end kind of reaction in intelligence ways, avoidin the nonsense which kill the constance of zero too, when zero is from all knowing fact, this is how zero exist what every present know already right since truth is always beyond absolute objectivity so some knowledge is fully realized as all known, when u r standin existin bc of using what the other dont know then u kill the fact of all known by killin the fact of urself knowin that u wont get anything out of it

logically it is impossible for freedom to b another nor recognize another freedom existing, especially when freedom need to b fully existing for each mean or perspective intrinsically as basically n superficially that is all it is there

to keep it objective reasonning, so logical ends of freedom being existence truth, is infinite freedom each intelligent alone always,

again stayin objective more, freedom reality as the end of infinite freedom that must each realize smthg or deal with realizing or reality to get out from recognizin abstractly the existence of else freedom as not only its fact own one, so anything objective just to stay in peace free alone but in clearly recognizing that yea im not alone free in principle it is to truth

now leavin objective the fact and mean objective concept to picture better the fact and its freedom too so its roofs u could guess

discussions are always meaning more isolations and separations of wills to b together one, impossible pursuit that objective facts keep takin advantage of it to get to its true objective fact

so logically as a reply to ur question, discussion doesnt end necessarily by a standin position, since truth immediately isolate the willin then that one would found its stand certainty already done so wont need it
that is how the end of discussion which the start of discussing smthg way, is logically by denyin the other argument so makin the devil present of its random intelligence of rejections that look superior or commonly existing

but what i meant there is not to reply for discussion but a crucial point that me only recognize, so lets start to say clearly in words what my logics end up to totally opposed to ur ends

when freedom being existence truth and true relations is impossible objective, then reality would b relative to intelligence superiority in dealin with that fact objectively

i didnt say anything yet of my own logical ways ends from where i start

while u are all there, standin individually enjoyin the relative knowledge of truth and the abstract superior realisation regardin another or others as objective constance u keep from truth recognitions giving u like a perspective sense of knowing the objective share and position

for me i cant get that b really happenin it is too stupid impossible how can it b repeated like that

so i turn my head with disgust and rejection without meanin smthg else since there is no sense when objective is through nonsense

but i find out that i cant go anywhere else even by rejectin being, im still there have to deal with that constant too so meaning the constance fact at some clear points that need smtg to b at the right standard of existence at least zero constance standard, i accidentally do another way of objective constance abstraction which lead to another concept of objective perspectives

for me, when freedom is true existence then ur own move is the exclusive one move, so u cant get anything from standin there and pretendin being more intelligent then the other or others in knowin that noone can b else in anyterms, knowing about the useless void pursuit
for me it is more stupid when u know the fact to act as if u can gain from that knowledge
knowin the fact cant but lead to one end kind of reaction in intelligence ways, avoidin the nonsense which kill the constance of zero too, when zero is from all knowing fact, this is how zero exist what every present know already right since truth is always beyond absolute objectivity so some knowledge is fully realized as all known, when u r standin existin bc of using what the other dont know then u kill the fact of all known by killin the fact of urself knowin that u wont get anything out of it

in my logical ways, while i insist on sayin my bc i own it alone so all to me u cant do the same logics it is not to truth it is to relative free way so mine

n im insisting upon that mine bc of what u insist on lying saying that it can b sold and bought, revealin the whole evil being and lies as the exclusive reason of constant ways

so according to me, objective perspective is clearly about relative superiority, since where freedom individualities stand the exclusive mean objectively existing is one or other superiority thing n everything same there

then to me, logically since relative superiority is the objective fact then absolute superiority exist, when relative superiority is the zero existence kind of all known existing, then the plus exist before that minimale existence, so if not absolute superiority exist at least not relative superiority exist which mean true superirority exist

then my objective perspective can stand as constance ways by the logical premise makin me keepin realize lookin up instaed of down or even same

there i would benefit from what objective truth is superiority so i would benefit from the constance of truth existence by being real with so i would b logically constant right existing without being constantly same like u stupidly do

while by realizing objective superiority in relative terms that for freedom cant but support smthg all there or havin to b there, i would logically b free of limits that are the reason of subjective negativity since truth of freedom is constant superiority and objectively limits kill all justifications from its random repetitions as limits so nonsense is clearly the only present abstraction

n by being free of limits i can pass some free time to look into senses values, since anything and everything is out of making senses of different freedom realisations, so gaining somthg become possible in keepin evevrything as it is since lookin up as constance, n then lookin to things from true value perspectives while being real with superiority constance so relatively true

Not necessarily. I have been reading Rorty and Derrida recently, and they both stress the pitfalls of clinging to " a position". Derrida for examples delights in exposing aporia (built in contradictions which accompany most if not all positions). Following that view,the function of philosophical discussion amounts to "therapy" in the Wittgensteinian sense.

The Indian Buddhist "logician", Nagarguna, took what appears to me to be a similar position: every "position" contradicts itself when carried to its logical extreme. I like to think of philosophy in the "therapeudic" sense that also describes the creation and experience of art. The holy trinity, aesthetics, love, and wisdom, serve to justify existence--when one unwisely requires its justification.

on the contrary art is for one out of existence, obviously art are to the past so even before relative existence and true existence that focus on details reality building right futur

art is ur women lookin for to feed u as a baby forever being nothing but gettin smthg that taste nice

ask ur god in mind if he is an artist while meanin anything to see, he will tell u the truth the monster he is to get what he wants as a pretense of being over existence while objective by itself is makin it lookin ok and for itself ground, then some up above god confirm logical grounds realisations out of abstract superiority so nothing that matter but has the effect to sponsor a bit strength to true existence sense

THEORY OF MOTHER MACROGALAXY

We have the relation of: BEING, CAUSE AND EFFECT.

What it was the first BEING?

For believers: God.

For somebody: nothing, no space and no time.

For us: The Mother Macrogalaxy gave birth to all other galaxies. This galaxy only consisted of stars. Due to the big bang the Mother Macrogalaxy expanded and emerged the other galaxies with stars and planets.

Is this your position?

yes. How about you?

With the permission of the administration of this website I want to bring the URL of my blog about the nature of time:

http://philochrony-time.blogspot.com/

Metaphilosophical Principles (tentative and not comprehensive)

1. Principle of Connection - That every part in a philosophical system is connected with another. This is a necessary condition. The sufficient condition is: that every part is interchangeable.

2. Principle of Holism - A philosophical system is greater than the sum of its parts. For the very realization of a whole requires that its parts be construed in such-and-such a way (c.f. "Autopoiesis and Cognition", "The Democracy of Objects").

3. Principle of Revision - That all parts, and even the whole, are subject to revision in light of other discoveries in separate fields.

3.1 Corollary - All systems in every field are connected to one another. This is obvious from 1 and 3.

4. Principle of Change - In light of deficiencies in parts or wholes, such parts or wholes may be rejected. This may lead to changes in parts/wholes, or to the altogether rejection of these parts/wholes.

4.1 Corollary - Minor perturbations in a system may or may not lead to an overall change of the whole or subsets of its parts. Obvious from 3 and 4.

5. Principle of Non-Contradiction - That a system of philosophy should not entail a contradiction. This principle is applicable to all other systems.

Philosophy is at once immanent and transcendent, above and amongst every other field. This counters Wittgenstein's proposition (TLP 4.111).

As you can see, I do not hold philosophy to simply be "therapeutic". It has far more uses as well (speculative, theoretical, practical, etc.).

Metaphilosophically, I follow more in line with Rescher and Quine, along with "objective" pragmatists.

THE BECOMING-TIME EXISTS

They are half right who claim that time does not exist, because as an abstract entity is transreal, does not exist in reality. First let's look at the definition of the becoming concept: the becoming is the continuous succession of changes or phenomena that are delimited by a start and an end. All physical changes have a beginning, a becoming and an end. Time is the interval between two moments or cuts (interruptions) arising from happening.

As we see time is linked inextricably to the becoming which is real and palpable, so becoming-time duality exists independently of our minds. Time taken alone is just an idea or an abstract concept.
When we go to the movies, the movie have a beginning, a becoming and an end. The becoming-time is so obvious and evident that doesn't requires proof or demonstration because we experience it every moment or time.

The duration is the mathematical representation (magnitude) of the becoming-time obtained from a regular rhythm or periodic phenomenon in which we identify the beginning, the becoming and the end.

It's said that the big bang originated the matter, energy, space and time. That before the Big Bang there was a highly dense singularity. The big bang is considered as time zero, or rather duration zero, because zero has no place in the becoming-time. If there was a singular point there was the becoming-time. In duration zero there is becoming, but is adopted as a convention. For example, 10 minutes are counted from zero, which is the first cut, the beginning of the interval. But zero is not the absence of becoming, It's a utility.

Whether creation or explosion we have this very useful dual variable allows us to sort the facts and events in sequence: the becoming-time.

Anyone here ever hear the expression: I really do not know for sure?

We've gone deaf from you saying it !

it is amazin to see how u reached an absolute deformation of everything by being fully subjective will and fully objective opportunist

time is the objective result of truth infinite superiority what u call wrong the constant sense of becomin, first of all, it is not becomin, it simply keep goin up bc freedom superiority is the truth so any sense is immediately more a sense of gettin up above it
that is how how u put zero out of all is pathetic, u clearly picture everything as rigid still things that became of become
u lack the least sense of objective perspective right

time is the objective result of infinite superiority

that is why gods have fun with it and can create existing lives eternally if they want

what is already up superior more left smthg that is different with other thing left before, objectively those two different true objective values make a reality together but they are not the same, the time they need to free that reality into one else thing concept, is the right zero that is always there

when truth is freedom superiority then the more any is true the more it is totally independant and the more any reality with is totally else as relative result free necessarilty since real with freedom

I say it all the time in physics class.

I guess here, it would be "blind" from me writing it.

But seriously, doesn't the comment, "I do not really know" apply here rather aptly?

Sure would like to see it used a few times by a couple of people HERE!

No it does not apply because yet again you are using a layman's concept of what "to know" means (underscored by the phrase "for sure") and trying to apply it to the physics of "events". For example, Einstein showed that knowing whether events were "simultaneous" or not was a meaningless question since simultaneity was a function of relativistic reference frames. And in this example lies the kernal of the deconstruction of the idea of "time" as an independent physical parameter.