creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:46 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:19 pm
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:26 pm
Well no.
Understanding existential dependency has everything to do with definitions. Our knowledge of existential dependency is existentially dependent upon definitions... definitions... language.
What I'm taking account of(existential dependency) does not require(is not existentially dependent upon) being taken account of... unlike "bachelor".
Defintion, as separation of axioms, relative to language or not is still inherent within all existence.
Then definition and axioms are not existentially dependent upon language, and all existence consists - in part at least - of both.
Yes.
A) All language exists through definition (connection/seperation) and axioms (self-evidence).
1. Language separates itself in the respect it is directed to further languages, and in these respects language is progressive.
2. Language A as directed towards language B, observes language B directed towards language A; hence language A and B are connected.
3. This nature of language, and it's directive capacity to further language, is in itself axiomatic as language exists as through a directive quality alone.
B) The nature of definition, while existing through further definition, observes defintion as separation and connection necessitating
1. Separation existing through further separation and connection.
For example if a projects to b, causing a separation from a and b due to this projection nature, this separation occurs through further separation as a projecting to b occurs through a projecting to a.1 then a.2 then a.3 so on and so forth with a.1/a.2/a.3 projecting further respectively to a.11/a.21/a.31 so on an so forth.
However because projection in one finite direction occurs if and only if there is a point of origin, with this point of origin being constant through the continual projection as a cause, the effect of all cause is in itself a cause and is inherently directed through itself as itself. So where A projects to B, with B being and approximate cause of A as effect, B is directed back to A through A considering B is an extension of A as a cause. A and B are directed towards eachother and hence connected.
So while A and B are separated in the respect they are approximates of eachother, they are connected in the respect they are points of origin. Separation exists through connection as a negative boundary where because A and B are directed towards eachother as one, they exist as directives in themselves through themselves and any perceivable separation is merely a negative boundary or an absence of direction where the objects perceive multiplicity is imaginary and the separation observes a form of connection in a separate time zone where they are directed towards eachother simultaneously.
2. Connection existing through further separation and connection.
This occurs vice versa relative to point one.
The perceived separation of objects, as one is projected away from the other, necessitates they were connected at one point. In a separate respect the connection of A and B as 1 exists as C being a separate entity from A or B, except where C is connected to A through B and is connected to B through A. So in connecting A and B dissolve into a new axiom of C. In these respects connection leads to separation where A and B project to C.
Dually connection results in further connection where A and B projecting to C results, considering C as a cause through the cause, in C projecting to A and B as A, B and C.
3. Connection and separation alternate through Points 1 and 2 and are fundamentally all alternation between projective/extradimensionality and maintaining/intradimensionality.
As alternation connection and separation are fundamentally connected as one is directed towards the other.
In a separate respect, they (pardon the pun) are separated as one projects away from the other. Separation is a projection away from connection and connection is a projection away from separation.
Definition is axiomatic as directed movement.
C) Point point 2 exists through Point 1(definition exists through language but is not limited to it) and point 1 exists through point 2 (where language exists through definition but is not limited to it)
These points of language and defintion are mere origins of structure, as complex limits, in the respect they are limits in themselves as directed and moving. So language is a point of origin, as well as definition. This point of origin, or self evident observe a nature of formlessness and form.
Language is formless in the respect it does not exist on its own terms as an origin, unless it projects to definition, symbolism, abstraction, concrete form (written word or a painting), etc. Language as a point of origin for these many different complex limits in itself is nothing but a point of inversion where it inverts from a state of unity (language) to a multiplicity (Language projecting to abstract definition, etc.) And is effectively void or nothing in its own nature.
Simultaneously, this multiplicity inverting to a unit(s)(Language and defintion as not existing in itself but thrpugh eachother while existing as means in themselves as being composed of or composing the other) So language may be composed of defintion, but definition in itself is nothing but rather is encapsulated through language and is directed through it.
These axioms, as origins, in turn exist as everything in themselves with all axioms being extensions of them. For example all phenomena exist through language. All phenomena exist through definition.
So the axiom is merely a point of origin and is self evident as subjective and without form or function (as one cannot exist without the other) hence void, and objective as form and function (pure directed movment) hence everything.
The axiom is merely a point of origin as everything and nothing, with the point being the foundation of all axioms.