If a difference has no equivalence it can never be represented. Is this a valid statement?

Answer 1

This is a powerful paradox of human perception. We perceive all things relative to other things. Knowledge, if not relative and symbolic, is absolute - a wordless experience of a singular and non-attributive reality.

We all know ourselves to be different and unique from one another because we are essentially similar. We would not have been able know any other person if we would not see with differences through essential similarities, that you call equivalences. If we would not have been able to see other people we would not have been able to know ourselves as we do personally. We also have an essential tendency to become and feel commonplace in our togetherness which is most threatening to us all.

No single thing, person, place, concept or idea can ever be possessed, known, visited, conceived or imagined respectively in our relative knowledge if we do not bear a certain amount of familiarity to it. Nothing that cannot be equated to at least one other thing already known to us can ever be observed, explained or defined.

My sensory and intuitive perception both are instrumental to me consciousness. I am not only conscious of what I know but also what I know I do not know. I know myself, as I am, as a certain special and unique individual because I am conscious of the physical world that I inhibit. In this physical world facts are definitive. Physical realty is limitative. But in my self I feel unison with the world all around me, and then I feel notions of eternity and see divisions of times being merged into but just one single moment. I have in my essence no limit to myself.

If I do not know how something is different from all other things, I would not know that thing, and if I do not have a common viewpoint for observation for more than one thing simultaneously than I would not know if there is just one thing, more than one or non at all. If I would not know any difference, I would know nothing but one.

In absolute reality there is no you or me, just a singular being uncountable. I can know things when I can see how differently that something is in relation or in equivalence to other things. The realisations of difference upon similarities can be acute, ironic or too subtle to be noticeable ever.

So, if a difference has no equivalence it can never be represented. Is this a valid statement? True!

Answer 2

Refridgerator is to Toe Jam as Toe Jam is to ??

If A differs from B in that B is is selfless while A is selfish, both A and B consist of relative amounts of selfishness and selflessness: A has X quantity of Selfishness and 0 selflessness, while B is visa versa.

However, you cannot say A differs from B in that A has a refridgerator while B has a toe jam problem. The two are inequivilent for contrast.

Interesting paradox.

Answer 3

Yes, this is a valid statement. The difference hence has no value.

Answer 4

A difference does have an equivanlence as a ratio above and below the mean.

Answer 5

a human being human being will not be equivalent to everyone or something else. in spite of the indisputable fact that, someone can represent many stuff. something that human being does or is fascinated in is something they represent.

Answer 6

Let me rephrase it:
If not E(A) then not R(A).
This is not valid.[1]

Answer 7

Yes whatever you say

Answer 8

no.