The Dualism of Meaning and No-Meaning and Contradiction as a Truth Statement.

[Eodnhoj7]

The Dualism of Meaning and No-Meaning and Contradiction as a Truth Statement.

The question of "meaning" is a foundational axiom in all of philosophy and is necessitated through various axioms, in the change of philosophy relative to time, where the question or description of "meaning" is replaced with words such as "being", "morality", "ethics", "science", etc.. The paradox occurs in that while these foundation axioms, setting up the foundations various philosophies, all may seem "seperate" the fact that they exist as a point of origin necessitates them as "meaningful" and hence exist as extensions of the question/answer dichotomy that defines philosophy.

The problem occurs in the respect that this variation of the question/answer nature of philosophy over "meaning" into "meanings" results in an inherent contradictory nature resulting in "no-meaning" but rather a continual "variation".


1) Meaning observes a center-point between opposing phenomenon, that necessitates an equilibrium. This statement is a center-point to further statements, as its definition alone necessitates further progressive and regressive definition in the language alone.

2) No meaning is an absence of a center-point between opposing phenomenon. This statement is a contradiction to further statements, as its definition alone necessitates a further continuum of opposing definitions in the language alone.

3) Point 2, as contradiction observes the continuation of contradiction where each contradiction is subject to a middle point between contradictions; thus necessitating point 1 and negates itself.

4) Point 1, as meaningful observes the continuation of meaning in all phenomenon where each phenomenon is subject to a relatively thetical or antithetical; thus necessitating point 2 and negating itself.

5) Points 1 and 2 circulate through points 3 and 4, and points 3 and 4 circulate through Points 1 and 2, but progress through various other philosophical schools and language as in a series of variations ranging from wholism/atomism, Platonism/Aristotelian, rationalists and irrationalists, transcendentalists/materialists, positivists/anti positivists, etc. as well as the center point each school exists through its progression to another.

[Walker]

No center point would mean no consensus between two other points, however there’s always a balance point between two unequal masses that could also mean the center, even if the point be closer to the greater. Would you say that consensus is a necessary center point to validate meaning, or is consensus superfluous to the validity of meaning?

[Eodnhoj7]

No center point would mean no consensus between two other points, however there’s always a balance point between two unequal masses that could also mean the center, even if the point be closer to the greater. Would you say that consensus is a necessary center point to validate meaning, or is consensus superfluous to the validity of meaning?

Consensus is a center point to validate meaning, is it necessary? Not always.

Each contradiction as 1 dualism, always results in a further set of contradictions, hence each contradiction is meaningful in themselves.

Take for example:

1. Positive and negative quantities are an opposing state.

2. The opposite of quantity is quality and quality exists in this opposing state of positive and negative.

3. Both positive and negative, as duals exist as quantity and quality.

4. So while positive and negative may synthesize 1 contradiction as quantity and quality, they also synthesis one constant "neutrality" that exists as a super positioned state.

5. Meaning results in a constant state of super positioning in which one phenomenon exists in a different position to itself while fundamentally existing as the same.

6. This superposition of the phenomena, as meaningful or centered, necessitates meaning effectively existing everywhere.