If daylight is right to be opposed, can it be opposed using the conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

There is no correspondence existing theory/concept of what you are talking about in the English speaking world.

You acknowledge the concept has nothing to do with daylight (and it can't - concepts are purely a human invention). So you title makes no sense. And your use of 'daylight' makes no sense. And no, using 'daylight' in place of concepts will never work. We would call it a metaphor (when it is combined with 'human' type character traits / behaviours). Metaphors hold no real value except to paint a comparative yet abstract picture.

Thanks for your response.

It's my position, that daylight might be part of the framework of the problem. In terms of using daylight in place of concepts, I would say that again, the science of the problem isn't yet determined, and in all likelihood can't be, until all sentient beings are part of the investigation.

In general, the possibility of the problem, is that daylight's oversight position (as in being the skyline) relative to life on Earth renders daylight a suspect of the problem - the actual problem being that people and life are forced to identically consume across time, wherein time is a momentum arc.

Currently, it's my psychology that daylight could merely be a signifier, or a signal system of the problem.

Is that an attempt at mixing Hegel with Oriental Buddhism and Kafka altogether?

There are no author inspirations, for the concern. The mission, is to fix the problem of daylight being a misuser of time; to clarify, time resets life, but does so because of daylight. Two unthinking instances, of before is after.

All people are perhaps needed, by daylight, to solve the dilemma, meaning that instead of going to a potential war, with the Ukrainian people, both all members of the Russian army and all Ukrainians should sit down on the lands of Eurasia, and dismiss the logic of invasion and defence, as all locations are made of atoms, and support each other's analysis of the dilemma

Nations are made of ideas land is made of atoms...
Anyway I wish a good daylight!

I welcome your perspective.
Should CNN present the issue, to the audience, about whether land should be referenced as atoms, insofar as national speech goes?

So your position is that you insist on using English in a way that doesn't work in the English language...for a theory that can't be explained until everyone is the world partakes in a study...for multiple 'sciences' (eg time is a moment arc; people & life are forced to consume; daylight something or other) that aren't even understood (which means none of them may be possible).......

Out of all of those - the first is the most problematic. That's not saying the others aren't, but without the first - trying to explain the rest is meaningless. To be clear - so far, because of that, almost every word you have written has been wasted (because they can't be understood).

If it helps - don't use the word daylight (you don't seem to know how to use it).

There is no right or wrong, in the context of how daylight is used, because daylight is a force whose analysis creates no opposition.

Moreover: human data is inherently the inevitability of opposition, which makes daylight's analysis a relevant construct for such behaviour

I'm drawn, to what you said about "the first is the most problematic" - if you were referencing time, being a momentum arc, I would conjecture that time is a sequence, and sequence means climax and origin. The prompt, of daylight's analysis, at least to my reckoning, is that one has the problem of the "identical" consumption across time.

The "identical" consumption across time construct is about ending the climax so that the previous means can happen again, when the previous means was about opposing the climax.

You have given daylight a meaning all of it's own, something that is unique to you.

You lack the wherewithal to explain what you mean by daylight so we're all subjected to a load of nonsensical bilge.

It's utter nonsense, God knows what point you're trying to make.

The only thing you've succeeded in, is letting everyone know you talk total bollocks.

It's natural, that I lack the power to describe the problem, because the problem lacks 100% participation, as in the total participation of humanity.

It's highly plausible, that the very reality of means using climax in capitalist society is a causation mirror, to the means using climax of daylight.

The point, of the daylight analysis, is to create a sequence of origin, means and climax which is consistent, even if it means cancelling the universe as a whole, but preserving computational structure, since computational structure is the inevitable logic of humanity anyway, because humanity is an inevitable post-sequence.

The problem resides exclusively between your ears.

Every time I see the word climax in this topic, I can assure you, I don't think about daylight.

Seek psychiatric help.

The first problem that I mentioned, related to your use of the English language in a way that English was not meant to be used - ie. no one can understand it. Without the audience being able to understand what you are saying - your words are wasted. They will continually be wasted until you use English in a way that can be understood by others. Your use of 'daylight' as a single word to replace a vast theory that exists in your mind (which you apparently don't want to explain without still using the word daylight in place of vast parts of your theory) is utterly futile.

Further - anything you have tried to explain - has been littered with so many esoteric & inexplicable combination of words as to be rendered meaningless...because you don't explain those either. If you are trying to explain a very vague concept using very vague words that don't go together, combined with singular words that represent vast background information...all without any solid explanation...then you can't expect anyone to understand you.

The above isn't about right and wrong - it about the inability to understand you due to your utterly inexplicable use of the English language.

"Your use of daylight as a single word to replace a vast theory that exists in your mind":

The replace the vast theory part, of this quote is the part I'll address:
It seems, that you're referring to the before is after complex not having to be daylight incarnate.

I'll clarify, what is meant by before-is-after:
For the sake of practical science, as opposed to theoretical science, it means 'means being after climax'.

What is your interpretation, of means being after climax?

Dude, you are still not making any sense, and don't appear to understand what the issue is preventing anyone from understanding what you write.


For example - there are multiple types & uses of climaxes in the English language:
- the apex of Sexual activity
- the End (of anything)
- the highest level of gratification (of any kind)
- the peak of of any event
- the busiest time of a planned activity
- the most of anything that rises and falls in number
etc
...and none of them are related to Daylight in the English language (and 'before is after' is not explained by you at all in a way that English speakers understand)

...which renders this reply of your (just like every previous post in this thread) as nonsensical.

If you can't see what the issue is, when every single person is saying you have an issue with how you use the English language...then perhaps you need to have a deeper look inside yourself for what your issue is with your use of the language. If you still cant see it - seek advice from a professional.

You are talking to a bot he has no ears...

I think the word you are looking for is synthesis in an Hegelian attempt at some meaningful world-view with retro causation posing as a kafkian allusion to "daylight" as being the actual source of every phenomena.

...but let me tell you that your "daylight" is actually very dark as the "source" is mindless and has no appreciation for whatever is retro derived from it.
An extension is still part of a source and the distinction between source and outcome is a convenient artefact of the human mind regarding our perception of Time and causation.

The worst day of your life has as much "daylight" just as every other day in which you were not born or already dead. Reality is DARK and aimless!
The outcome is just completion, it goes nowhere from there.
The cause is just a pretext for context which holds no novelty or prescribes no real news.

Thanks for the list, of definitions of climax.

I'll take the focus away, from before is after, and just try to focus on the concept of 'reboot'.

The objective reality, of daylight, is humanity being rebooted. People have to use food, identically, across time.

Because consumption of food is an identical consumption, it is possibly wrong for people to have to identically consume food across time.

What are your thoughts?

Thank you, for the response.

When you say, that the source is mindless, possibly referring to the sun, it gets me thinking about a previous paradigm that occurred to me: unthinking socialism that uses capitalist movement, in which the former duo is the sun, and the latter duo is reality.

The sun is thoughtless. But, it uses reboot identically, with identical denoting socialism, because of sharing meaning identical.
The capitalist movement is the reality movement.

A real movement, which is socialism, but coming from thoughtlessness.