Fidelity as (Ideal) Form / Form as (in)Fidelity

[nothing]

Trying the discovered proposition:

What infidelity is to: less-than-ideal form-with-substance,
fidelity is to: ideal form-without-substance.

To frame: an ideal perfect equilateral triangle is three equal points/lines/angles,
thus has a definite relationship to/with an ideal perfect circle: the apex
and two vertices perfectly defining any three equidistant points of a related circle.

If one intuits any such equilateral triangle is thus also a circle
(whose circumference definitely lies on the vertices),
in their most ideal 'form' (ie. highest fidelity)
they ideally co-define one another:
circle can 'let be' equilateral triangle,
and equilateral triangle can 'let be' circle.

This is thus "fidelity" as ideal form: itself without innate substance
(ie. as existing, but not in/of any particular physical nature)
with the example illustrating the relationship (ie. fidelity) between:
image (ie. masculine) and likeness (ie. feminine)
as simply being a matter of line-curve particle-wave syntheses reflecting
the innate dielectric/magnetic nature of the ether acting in/as either:
a perpetuity (ie. form with fidelity) or something-less-than (ie. any infidel form).

Thus, form (ie. less than ideal) as infidelity is implied as any/all less:
manifest attempts at form(s) with resulting innate substance(s)
(ie. infidelities) as an "approach" and/or gradation from
some "ideal" form: real or imagined.

If one thus begins with a folded circle infinity, and allows the two poles of the infinity to serve as two vertices of a related equilateral triangle-circle-duo, one finds that the "third point" needed to complete the triangle is in one-of-two variable places. This definitely only-one-of-two phenomena is discovered (viz. by CKIIT) as a principle discipline of consciousness esp. as it relates to definite distinction(s) between what is true/false via if/when any one particular can not possibly be occupying one-of-two apex-variables.

https://meru.org/Posters/gen1-3.html

Graphic viz. the one-or-the-other true/false phenomena is captured in/as Genesis 1:3 and elaborated in/as Genesis 1:4

GENESIS 1:4 (my own translation finding the rest are not good)
וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך
And beholding (elohim) the (essence of) light (that it was good), so distinguished (elohim) the light (from the darkness).

Genesis 1:4 describes a fidelity-to-infidelity form(s): the first reference to light is distinctly preceded by (essence of) whereas the second is lacking, indicating that the resulting 'light' that is being distinguished from the darkness is not essence of light, but rather as distinct from essence of light: just plain light. Genesis 1:3 can thus be "plotted" on/as an equilateral triangle wherein image/likeness are the vertices and a shared 'fidelity' apex and Elohim is an ideal shared will relationship:

Apex:

And saying (elohim)

Image:

'Let light be,'

Likeness:

and light was.

of which the synthesis reduces into any manner of forms with any degree(s) of like fidelity flanking an apex from either side:

El - oh - im
I am that I am
Male(+) and Female(-)
dielectricity and magnetism
Image and likeness
Adam and Eve
Bestowal and Reception
Sowing and Reaping
Particle and Wave
etc.
___________________________
wherein:
fidelity to 1:1 proportionality destroys particular infidel form(s), and
infidelity to 1:1 proportionality (ie. 1:2, 1:4, 1:9 etc.) creates particular infidel form(s)

and the third "point" of any such dichotomy being a collapse of the only-one-of-two-possible 'state': approaching either fidelity or infidelity with respect to any form. It follows that any/all so-called "Abrahamic" religions that do not actively/consciously idealize the Edenic 'state' proportions of 1:1 man/woman are inherently and intrinsically infidel.

Such a disruption/perversion of such a perfectly natural 'law' is best demonstrated by the religion of Islam wherein Muhammadan men believe themselves entitled to multiple women contrary to the fidelity of the Edenic 'state' as being comprised of one man and one woman. This infidel gradation of fidelity is "justified" by the Muhammadans according to their belief/worship of a book and a dead infidel man whose own infidel nature defines the 'state' of Islam.

This problem-example further highlights the problem-in-and-of-itself of belief-in-and-of-itself. One can always try any belief as trying the inverse of that belief (as related to the one-of-two possible 'states'):

Islam is a religion of (+) peace. <-* Belief-based claim as one particulate
Is the inverse (+ -> -) true? What is the inverse of peace? <-* vertices
Islam is a religion of (-) perpetual war. <-*Inverse of belief-based claim as another particulate

Which particulate more closely reflects the reality?
Islam is a religion of peace. <-* Belief-based claim as one particulate
Islam is a religion of perpetual war. <-*Inverse of belief-based claim as another particulate

And very easy trial(s) after belief enters the equation:
Does it yes/no take a believer to believe:
perpetual war leads to peace? (yes)
Infidelity is fidelity? (yes)
Evil is good? (yes)
Satan is god? (yes)
etc.
and it is always 'yes' re: "the opposite of whatever is manifestly true".

viz. the 2/3-completed equilateral triangle requiring a only-one-of-two apex is a geometric representation of the truth-by-way-of-negation method derived by CKIIT that appears to be as infallible as the being themselves using it. It is employed by the theorem to derive the conclusions it purports: regardless of how controversial/upsetting they may be.

Also recently found:
Pigs whine and squeal. <-* fascists
Sheep tend to flock. <-* unconscious/ignorant
Goats climb mountains. <-* conscious/attentive

[Eodnhoj7]

Trying the discovered proposition:

What infidelity is to: less-than-ideal form-with-substance,
fidelity is to: ideal form-without-substance.

To frame: an ideal perfect equilateral triangle is three equal points/lines/angles,
thus has a definite relationship to/with an ideal perfect circle: the apex
and two vertices perfectly defining any three equidistant points of a related circle.

If one intuits any such equilateral triangle is thus also a circle
(whose circumference definitely lies on the vertices),
in their most ideal 'form' (ie. highest fidelity)
they ideally co-define one another:
circle can 'let be' equilateral triangle,
and equilateral triangle can 'let be' circle.

This is thus "fidelity" as ideal form: itself without innate substance
(ie. as existing, but not in/of any particular physical nature)
with the example illustrating the relationship (ie. fidelity) between:
image (ie. masculine) and likeness (ie. feminine)
as simply being a matter of line-curve particle-wave syntheses reflecting
the innate dielectric/magnetic nature of the ether acting in/as either:
a perpetuity (ie. form with fidelity) or something-less-than (ie. any infidel form).

Thus, form (ie. less than ideal) as infidelity is implied as any/all less:
manifest attempts at form(s) with resulting innate substance(s)
(ie. infidelities) as an "approach" and/or gradation from
some "ideal" form: real or imagined.

If one thus begins with a folded circle infinity, and allows the two poles of the infinity to serve as two vertices of a related equilateral triangle-circle-duo, one finds that the "third point" needed to complete the triangle is in one-of-two variable places. This definitely only-one-of-two phenomena is discovered (viz. by CKIIT) as a principle discipline of consciousness esp. as it relates to definite distinction(s) between what is true/false via if/when any one particular can not possibly be occupying one-of-two apex-variables.

https://meru.org/Posters/gen1-3.html

Graphic viz. the one-or-the-other true/false phenomena is captured in/as Genesis 1:3 and elaborated in/as Genesis 1:4

GENESIS 1:4 (my own translation finding the rest are not good)
וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשך
And beholding (elohim) the (essence of) light (that it was good), so distinguished (elohim) the light (from the darkness).

Genesis 1:4 describes a fidelity-to-infidelity form(s): the first reference to light is distinctly preceded by (essence of) whereas the second is lacking, indicating that the resulting 'light' that is being distinguished from the darkness is not essence of light, but rather as distinct from essence of light: just plain light. Genesis 1:3 can thus be "plotted" on/as an equilateral triangle wherein image/likeness are the vertices and a shared 'fidelity' apex and Elohim is an ideal shared will relationship:

Apex:

And saying (elohim)

Image:

'Let light be,'

Likeness:

and light was.

of which the synthesis reduces into any manner of forms with any degree(s) of like fidelity flanking an apex from either side:

El - oh - im
I am that I am
Male(+) and Female(-)
dielectricity and magnetism
Image and likeness
Adam and Eve
Bestowal and Reception
Sowing and Reaping
Particle and Wave
etc.
___________________________
wherein:
fidelity to 1:1 proportionality destroys particular infidel form(s), and
infidelity to 1:1 proportionality (ie. 1:2, 1:4, 1:9 etc.) creates particular infidel form(s)

and the third "point" of any such dichotomy being a collapse of the only-one-of-two-possible 'state': approaching either fidelity or infidelity with respect to any form. It follows that any/all so-called "Abrahamic" religions that do not actively/consciously idealize the Edenic 'state' proportions of 1:1 man/woman are inherently and intrinsically infidel.

Such a disruption/perversion of such a perfectly natural 'law' is best demonstrated by the religion of Islam wherein Muhammadan men believe themselves entitled to multiple women contrary to the fidelity of the Edenic 'state' as being comprised of one man and one woman. This infidel gradation of fidelity is "justified" by the Muhammadans according to their belief/worship of a book and a dead infidel man whose own infidel nature defines the 'state' of Islam.

This problem-example further highlights the problem-in-and-of-itself of belief-in-and-of-itself. One can always try any belief as trying the inverse of that belief (as related to the one-of-two possible 'states'):

Islam is a religion of (+) peace. <-* Belief-based claim as one particulate
Is the inverse (+ -> -) true? What is the inverse of peace? <-* vertices
Islam is a religion of (-) perpetual war. <-*Inverse of belief-based claim as another particulate

Which particulate more closely reflects the reality?
Islam is a religion of peace. <-* Belief-based claim as one particulate
Islam is a religion of perpetual war. <-*Inverse of belief-based claim as another particulate

And very easy trial(s) after belief enters the equation:
Does it yes/no take a believer to believe:
perpetual war leads to peace? (yes)
Infidelity is fidelity? (yes)
Evil is good? (yes)
Satan is god? (yes)
etc.
and it is always 'yes' re: "the opposite of whatever is manifestly true".

viz. the 2/3-completed equilateral triangle requiring a only-one-of-two apex is a geometric representation of the truth-by-way-of-negation method derived by CKIIT that appears to be as infallible as the being themselves using it. It is employed by the theorem to derive the conclusions it purports: regardless of how controversial/upsetting they may be.

Also recently found:
Pigs whine and squeal. <-* fascists
Sheep tend to flock. <-* unconscious/ignorant
Goats climb mountains. <-* conscious/attentive

Substance has no definition except as recursive forms. It is a tautology.

[nothing]

Substance has no definition except as recursive forms. It is a tautology.

Substance does not require a definition: it just is or is not, either as is and/or as is not.

S =/= S
root-of-S = (+)S or (-)S
S = *S
___________________
*variable: can be (+) or (-)

Stop trying to define things:
(problem-in-and-of-itself)
if any/all potential variability
of a subject is removed due to:
a lacking definition/definer, such
is liable to be a tautology of ones own
stubborn nature in insisting is! is! is!
when if fact: is not... is not... is not...
...necessarily...

why does 'that'
necessarily imply 'this'
as if distinct
and not reflections
of one another?

This-and-that is illusion: Form as Infidelity
This-and-this is the reality: Fidelity as Ideal Form

Whence ideal if not less than ideal?

This gets back into Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed nor Broken:
I argued for its soundness given it allows that an ought not
can be derived from an acknowledged is.

Acknowledgement of the infidelity of any form is
a universal condition to ever know the form in any
state of higher fidelity.

It would take a believer to believe
an infidel form is one of fidelity
thus virtue begets knowledge to reconcile.

[Eodnhoj7]

Substance has no definition except as recursive forms. It is a tautology.

Substance does not require a definition: it just is or is not, either as is and/or as is not.

S =/= S
root-of-S = (+)S or (-)S
S = *S
___________________
*variable: can be (+) or (-)

Stop trying to define things:
(problem-in-and-of-itself)
if any/all potential variability
of a subject is removed due to:
a lacking definition/definer, such
is liable to be a tautology of ones own
stubborn nature in insisting is! is! is!
when if fact: is not... is not... is not...
...necessarily...

why does 'that'
necessarily imply 'this'
as if distinct
and not reflections
of one another?

This-and-that is illusion: Form as Infidelity
This-and-this is the reality: Fidelity as Ideal Form

Whence ideal if not less than ideal?

This gets back into Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed nor Broken:
I argued for its soundness given it allows that an ought not
can be derived from an acknowledged is.

Acknowledgement of the infidelity of any form is
a universal condition to ever know the form in any
state of higher fidelity.

It would take a believer to believe
an infidel form is one of fidelity
thus virtue begets knowledge to reconcile.

Is or is not, positive or negative as dualistic poles of observing one phenomenon. As such they are definitive in nature.

[nothing]

Is or is not, (!) positive or negative as dualistic poles of observing one phenomenon. As such they are (!) definitive in nature.

Are you insane?

(!)

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of (!) good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt (!) surely die.

(!)

C: (*N)*either
B. is or
A: is not is definitive
*if: a third option
C. is known of (!).

Whereas denial conjugates definitely annihilate,
uncertainty can be indefinite.

ABC's of GOOD and EVIL
A believes B is evil (while relatively assuming/believing A is not).
B believes A is evil (while relatively assuming/believing B is not)
A and B annihilate.
C knows Neither
knew not
from which tree
Either ate.

+2 (any/all) <-*any/all creation/destruction
-1 KNOW <-*Tree of Living Forever (knowledge-in-and-of-itself)
*P I AM (willing *to*...)
+1 BELIEVE <-*Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (ignorance-in-and-of-itself)
-2 *not to* (any/all) <-*create/destroy
____________________________________________________________
*P + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = +P
*P - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = -P

ABC's of GOOD and EVIL
+P = positive/negative (indefinite)
-P = knowing to abstain (definite)

Is or is not, positive or negative as dualistic poles of observing one phenomenon. As such they are definitive in nature.

-P = knowing to abstain (definite)

(!)

[Eodnhoj7]

Is or is not, (!) positive or negative as dualistic poles of observing one phenomenon. As such they are (!) definitive in nature.

Are you insane?

Who cares if I am or am not.

If I have two poles, two extremes stemming from a common center point they result in defintion as they relate to and through eachother. If I have a single point (pole) I have no definition.

(!)

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of (!) good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt (!) surely die.

(!)

C: (*N)*either
B. is or
A: is not is definitive
*if: a third option
C. is known of (!).

Whereas denial conjugates definitely annihilate,
uncertainty can be indefinite.

ABC's of GOOD and EVIL
A believes B is evil (while relatively assuming/believing A is not).
B believes A is evil (while relatively assuming/believing B is not)
A and B annihilate.
C knows Neither
knew not
from which tree
Either ate.

+2 (any/all) <-*any/all creation/destruction
-1 KNOW <-*Tree of Living Forever (knowledge-in-and-of-itself)
*P I AM (willing *to*...)
+1 BELIEVE <-*Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (ignorance-in-and-of-itself)
-2 *not to* (any/all) <-*create/destroy
____________________________________________________________
*P + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = +P
*P - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = -P

ABC's of GOOD and EVIL
+P = positive/negative (indefinite)
-P = knowing to abstain (definite)

Is or is not, positive or negative as dualistic poles of observing one phenomenon. As such they are definitive in nature.

-P = knowing to abstain (definite)

(!)

I really don't care about the rest.

[nothing]

Who cares if I am or am not.

I do: CKIIT is designed to learn about / address the problem of suffering.

If I have two poles, two extremes stemming from a common center point they result in defintion as they relate to and through eachother. If I have a single point (pole) I have no definition.

The (nature of the) relationship is what is important:
reciprocal conjugation wherein one is the denial of the other.

The properties of such relationship(s) have universal applications
as it applies to any/all science(s), including conscience(s).

[Eodnhoj7]

Who cares if I am or am not.

I do: CKIIT is designed to learn about / address the problem of suffering.

If I have two poles, two extremes stemming from a common center point they result in defintion as they relate to and through eachother. If I have a single point (pole) I have no definition.

The (nature of the) relationship is what is important:
reciprocal conjugation wherein one is the denial of the other.

The properties of such relationship(s) have universal applications
as it applies to any/all science(s), including conscience(s).

The nature of relationship is definition nothing more or less.