Nothing can be recognized if there is no uniformity. What is your opinion?

Question

Nothing can be recognized if there is no uniformity. What is your opinion?

Answer 1

Nothing can be recognised if everything was uniform.

Think of everything before you all coloured red - not ''different'' shades of red, but the same ''uniform'' red - you couldn't distinguish the objects because there were no shadows and shades - all you would see is red! Uniformity = no recognition.

Answer 2

I have no opinions.

Uniformity requires that every man have an opinion...men would then be uniform in this respect. Each opinion would cause the other man to stop wondering about what is not understood when opinions are sufficient grounds for uniformity of acting. These men would busy themselves with acting and then justifying their acts with speeches and arguments instead of thinking (theorizing).  

{Nothing [-] can [+] be recognized if [conditional] there is no[-] uniformity.}

You've proven that since I have understanding of the necessity of theoretical activity, opinions themselves can be understood in the larger context of consent. Thinking, understanding, operates outside of this context, and so it is not recognizeable to those with an opinion. What you should be inquiring about is that amazing moment when nothing becomes something: a name or term is put to the thing.

Answer 3

Uh..... how about uniformity - you gotta recognize that. It really stands out in chaos just as chaos stands out among uniformity. Which prompts the question; Which is highlighting which?

Answer 4

Uniformity in its self alone does not describe the becoming for life from the dead. Recognition is the memory, not the reality and the need forms the memory for the needed, its uniformity. Memory having no need has no purpose for uniformity.