Definition Mapping in Dictionaries Necessitates Philosophy Having Underlying Formalisms That Determine It as Preordained

[Eodnhoj7]

****See updated, edited version below.

[TheVisionofEr]

all empirical and abstract being originates.

How do you account for the "abstraction" of the modalities? Or, of "possibility?"

[Eodnhoj7]

all empirical and abstract being originates.

How do you account for the "abstraction" of the modalities? Or, of "possibility?"

Abstraction is the manifestation of forms through our rational faculties. Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses. Both abstractions and empircality are manifestation of forms through different dimensions of reality with these dimensions being inversions of the other. The divergence of reason and sense occur through the "Big Bang" and "Principle of Explosion" as formalisms of a single expanding point which diverges into multiple dimensions.

[TheVisionofEr]

Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses.

Would you say that we see possibility with the eyes?

[Eodnhoj7]

Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses.

Would you say that we see possibility with the eyes?

We see possibility through the formation of images, imagination, and as such is an abstraction based upon the projection of empirical forms as abstractions.

[TheVisionofEr]

We see possibility through the formation of images, imagination

What is the rule by which imagination is distinguished form the "empirical?"

[Eodnhoj7]

We see possibility through the formation of images, imagination

What is the rule by which imagination is distinguished form the "empirical?"

All dimensions of reality are composed of forms, it is the alignment of forms, such as the forms developed through abstract and those that are perceived empirically which align in such a manner where what is imagined can be physicalized and vice versa.

[TheVisionofEr]

what is imagined can be physicalized and vice versa.

How is the distinction between what is imagined and what is physicalized drawn?

[Eodnhoj7]

what is imagined can be physicalized and vice versa.

How is the distinction between what is imagined and what is physicalized drawn?

The distinction between any set of forms, as dimensions, such as the dichotomy between abstractions and empiricality sense phenomena, occurs by there ability to align through a symmetry. For example a unicorn may exist abstractly but the absense of unicorns empirically, barring symbolism through art, sets a distinction between these dimensions.

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions. In simpler terms, the forms that exist in one dimension over another, sets the distinction. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image, allowing for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions.

[TheVisionofEr]

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions.

What status does the form of "dimension" have?

[Eodnhoj7]

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions.

What status does the form of "dimension" have?

"Dimension", as defined, is tautological to "form" by nature as a series of complex forms which work together to form a new form. As such, through this nature of definition, we see any philosophical definition as following thr same definition mapping as the words and symbols which form it. Just as the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own, so a dimension is a complex myriad of forms which work together to form a whole. This property of definition is universal

For example in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to form a whole. Empirically these forms may only exist as a picture. In one dimension the unicorn acts as whole actualized entity, in another dimension it appears only as an image of itself.

[TheVisionofEr]

as an image of itself.

So, you say anything at all is form? And none are higher or lower in rank of importance? And each can modify each other? As the form of image could modify the form of the physical. Such that the physical could be regarded as an image or imagination.

[Eodnhoj7]

as an image of itself.

So, you say anything at all is form? And none are higher or lower in rank of importance? And each can modify each other? As the form of image could modify the form of the physical. Such that the physical could be regarded as an image or imagination.

All being, as defined consists of forms and dimensions as complex forms. All that exists stems from a singular point with the point being the center of all form. All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by there degrees of seperation from the original point. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image with the image being synonymous to form as both give defintion.

Imagination is the abstract diverging and converging of points to form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. In these respects, however, the physical can be seen as imaginary, that which is given image to, as well. It is this divergence from a single point which allows for one set of forms, be it abstract or physical, to effectively modify but synthesizing through the common source.

[Eodnhoj7]

Update***

The grounding of all arguments is founded in the premise. The premise however has no formal system in determining its introduction other than the assertion by the observer. The premise is subject to the angle of the observer. This angle of the observer is the formalism itself in determining which phenomena act as a premise and which do not.

As a formalism, the angle of the observer has a thetical and antithetical element. The thetical is that which is observed through the observer. The antithetical is that which is not observed through the observer.

Premises are thus determined by a dualism between what is observed and what is not observed. This dualism forms the angle of observation itself where what is observed is a series of continuums which intersect at the point of non observation. It is the series of continuums which form observation itself and the absence of continuums which reflect an absense of observation.

All arguments, as subject to the angle of the observer, are thus grounded in continuums with these continuums acting as the premise. Considering the premise of an argument has no set formalisms in determining what acts as the premise and what does not, the formalism of the premise is always a continuum. Formalism is continuity of the premise from one state into another however there is no formalism in determining which premise one begins with other than continuum itself. In these respects all premises, as subject to the point of the observer, are random in respect to subject, but formalized as continuums.

This continuum is the process of definition.

The volume of words is premised upon one thing expressed in a variety of ways. One phenomena as replicating does so as an adaptation to its inherent void. For example "x" has one meaning. This meaning is empty in and of itself thus it progresses to "y" where the relationship of "x" and "y" form eachother. "Y" and "x" are both empty on their own terms thus progressed to "z".

This emptiness is grounded in the circularity of the phenomenon where "x is x", "y is y", "x is y" and "y is x". Each term is an empty loop, and as an empty loop is determined by what phenomenon they progress to. This progression is the the process of definition where one word Inverts to another symmetrical word allowing for the repetition of the original word.

The definition of a problem in itself is a problem as problem is undefined. The problem of definition is the "problem of the problem" where definition of the problem requires a recursive understanding of the problem: the problem is a problem because it is a problem. Thus the problem is a mere assertion.

Look at any dialogue and you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?" Dialogue is subject to a process of definition.

Definition thus is to be defined, but this is rarely done without making some assumption as the question of "what is definition?" is rarely brought up...it is merely left empty and formless and all the forms which progress through this dialogue are changed into new forms under this "empty" word. For example the word "definition" is assumed as is, and a variety of other words stem from the word define, such as "study", "fundamental", "knowledge", etc. in an effort to give clarity to it.

However the word "definition" is still an empty word.

This empty word, a hinge point of most dialogues (but there are other words as well), necessitates argument as merely a revolution of concepts around an empty concept or strictly the emptiness of an assumption.

All dialogues, as definitive, are just loops hiding some formless assumption. They are loops within loops. This is "definition". This is not "definition". "Definition" is thus both clear and vague.

Philosophy is deemed successful if it is able to hide this loop within a number of different loops. We call this complexity "knowledge". We also call this a "circus".

Philosophy and is not even clear except assumed as clear...it is not even vague except as assumed as vague.

But this value placement of "clear" and "vague" is subject to the nature of value placement as a process of definition as well, a continuum of assumptions self referencing and fundamentally indefinite.

It is this self referencing of values through this process of definition, a perceivable hiding of assumptions under a variety of loops, that necessitates a hiding of subjectivity. This hidden subjectivity is grounded in the emptiness of the hinge terms that form the argument, considering the emptiness of the term allows for anyone to assign value placement as they want. In certain respects this equates philosophy to antiquated polytheistic religions where everyone has their own personal god.

This nature of "definition", takes the form of a branching tree within the sky of the empty mind. It distinguishes good from evil, true from false, through the linear branching of assumptions. This branching of definitions sets the foundation for what is distinct. This tree is a mythological archetype embodied under the basic form of a "Y". This "Y" allows for the divergence and convergence of the core assumptions in any argument when mapped out.

Philosophies emphasis on defintion is the reflection of an ancient religion called "story telling" meant to entertain the masses and distract them from the darkness outlying the fire of values that people circle around.

-----------


All knowledge is the imprinting of a pattern upon a previously thoughtless state where what was once thoughtlessness now takes the form of a thought.

Knowledge as the act of acceptance is the act of imprinting, imprinting is an act of repetition; thus knowledge as assuming is knowledge as repetition.

The repetition of this imprint is the repetition of a belief as belief is the acceptance of a phenomena as the assumption of that phenomena. This repetition of a belief is the continuum of the said belief. The continuity of the pattern, as a belief, is the binding of this belief to the observer; this binding is an act of trust or confidence where trust/confidence is an act of reliability. Reliability is repetition as the continuity of a pattern.

All knowledge as assumed is all assumption as imprinting. All imprinting is an act of pattern formation, all pattern formation is an act of repetition as a pattern is the repetition of a phenomena. All repetition is a continuum, this continuum is reliability. All knowledge as belief is all knowledge as reliable as repetitous.

Knowledge as repetition is knowledge as belief as all belief is an act of trust and trust exists as reliability. Trust is repetition, repetition is belief, belief is the formation of an assertion through an assumption.

Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. It is the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

As such it is the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These dichotomies represent the general state of a series of particulars existing in symmetrical opposition to eachother. A contradiction is a tautology of "dualism" or "dichotomy" which necessitates an inherent seperatedness between assertions. All distinction, that which seperates one phenomenon from another is born of this tautology, specifically that of the "dichotomy". It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of these dualisms. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a fundamental rule.

This still necessitates all contexts as having a triadic nature of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with this triadic nature necessitating certain universal laws which not just govern philosophy but are a means through which philosophy exists. To disagree with this statement is to present an antithetical argument to these laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form.

The dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiry thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic definitions as well. These synthetic definitions occurs as the amalgamation between extremes. For example, the extremes of cowardess and foolhardiness synthesize as bravery.

It is the application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, that necessitates philosophy as fundamentally undefined except as the application of dichotomies which can be represented under a continuum of further subsets of dichotomies. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis, or positive and negative values, necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the inversion of one state into an opposing, yet symmetrical, state. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism. Paradoxically even the application of "dichotomy" and "isomorphism", as key principles, creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism.

The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two stated around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being are opposites around void. The beginning of any quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition, thus even dichotomy and isomorphism are not fully defined except through the inversion of one into another.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables, within the thesis, into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities a tautology of further quantities. A tautology being the state of one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

For example fhis tautology can be represented, under the variables:

(A--> (B<-->-A))

or the quantities of:

(1-->(2<--->-1))

repsectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness.

"•" as void inverts to a variable as pure being, "A", as (• --> A), and "0" inverts into "1", as (0-->1).

In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another state of thesis and antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing set of forms, with these forms occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1, and 1 inverts to 2. An empty assumption Inverts to a an actual context, and this context Inverts to another context. 2 maintains a difference of 1, resulting in 1 forming -1 as an antithesis, and A maintains a difference from B as -A, resulting in A forming -A as an antithesis.

Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this being a dichotomy as well.

The synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. For example bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of bravery itself.

The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition by nature in which the thesis and antithesis seek to define.

Assertions are complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself. Assertions as loops are complete and consistent as processes of looping. Assertions as a dynamic process is this formless by nature as they are defined not just by the change from one assertion to another but as the change of one assertion into another. The dualistic division, of an assertion, into thesis and antithesis is dynamic, and as dynamic it is formless and above an set of rules which would have to embody the same means which determine them.


Again using the example of "bravery", the manifestation of a dichotomy leaves "bravery" as undefined except through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice". Without they thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition.

The application of a percieved formless definition, where a center point definition diverges into a dichotomy, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it. This creation of a new term, through the manifestation of extremes, makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where tautology of definition is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.

At its root, philosophy relies solely upon a dualism of "definition" and "no definition" where any real definition causes a paradox of something else being undefined, thus necessitating a cyclic nature as an alternation between extremes. This alternation between extremes of clarity and ambiguity is a circularity between particulars and generals. This is fully represented under a cycle. This cycle is absolute and constant as the maintanance of assertions; all assertions and forms connect and seperate. This assertion is simple.

It is the expression of one assertion under many assertions, where any form of analysis is the formation of one thing into many through a process of diverging and rediverging definitions. Analysis is a variable multiplier and contradicts any form of wholism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. Dually the progress to a particular is a paradoxical manifestation of a general where a particular as composed of many particulars in turn acts as a general. A part directs itself to a whole. In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one, the ambiguous into a lucid. This can be seen in word definition.

Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as a recursive spiral. One thing is expressed in a variety of ways, thus being what is called a "tautology." A tautology is subject to a tautology:

1. Tautology is variation.
2. Variation is change. -
3. Change is difference. --
4. Difference is divergence. ---

5. Divergence is variation. -
6. Variation is distinction.
7. Distinction is change.

8. Change is particulation. --
9. Particulation is difference.

10. Difference is Tautology. ---

11. Divergence is Tautology.

The definition of being, as tautological, follows this same nature:

1. Being is existence.
2. Existence is reality.
3. Reality is a state. -
4. State is a condition. --
5. Condition is circumstance. ---
6. Circumstance is a fact. ----
7. Fact is truth. -----

8. Reality is a truth. -
9. Truth is a thing.
10. Thing is an object
11. Object is a material.
12. Material is a state

13. State is a particular. --
14. Particular is an individual.
15. Individual is singular.
16. Singular is condition.

17. Condition is appearance. ---
18. Appearance is looks.
19. Looks is circumstance.

20. Circumstance is an event. ----
21. Event is a fact.

22. Fact is being. -----


This recursion is the repetition of assertions under new forms:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

Where:

1. The original word both references itself and leads to a new word.

2. The new word leads both to the original word, references itself and leads to a new word.

3. This process repeats in an expanding tautological spiral as a series of rings within rings where each word is a context.

4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as a self referencing ring.

The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language it that it manifests under. It is this this infinite regress to definition that necessitates all terms as existing as an inherent middle.

1. All exists through a infinite continuum.

2. The inversion of one continuum to another continuum allows the recursion of the continuum as a new continuum. This in itself is a continuum.

3. Each continuum, as a subset of an infinite continuum, is one infinite continuum inverted to many continuums, thus necessitating finiteness as multiple infinities.

4. The recurssion of one continuum into infinite continuums necessitates each continuum as a center point for a further continuum thus all continuums are meaningful. This meaning occurs through circularity resulting from repitition.

5. Each continuum, as inverting into another continuum is thus void in and of itself.

6. All continuums as centerpoint for further continuums, are instrincially empty contexts. Each continuum is an intrinsically empty context that is a center point for a further context.

This definition applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. Again, a tautology is one thing manifested in a variety of ways.

All tautologies, are spirals by nature.

1. One phenomena expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomena expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomena continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self expressive nature.


Thus the definition of a tautology is grounded in the inversion of one assertion into another.

This definition map exists alongside of the recursive spiral equation of:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

as:

((A --> A) --> (B<--> -A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, observes the process of a thesis invert to an antithetical state through a new definition which contains elements as to what one assertion is not.


These equations all represent Recursive/Inversive Contexts. Recursion is the repitition of a phenomenon, inversion as the change from one state into another, and context as the summation of recursion and inversion as a self sustained loop.

1. All assumptions are contexts: (A)(B)(-A)
2. All assumptions are recursive: (A --> A)
3. All assumptions are isomorphic: (A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)
4. All assumptions are contexts: ((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

For example: If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

Another example is posed under a question of reduction; "Is a man still a man with an arm removed?"

The form is a variation of the prior form, thus what we see between the form of a man, with an arm, and another man, without an arm, is the replication of forms (ie shape of head, erect posture, etc.). The forms may change but there are certain underlying forms which repeat. This reduction shows a tautological nature.

The same occurs numerically where 1-->2 shows the difference of 1 where if 1 is subtracted, -1, 2 reverts back to one again.

As to one and many, first there was only cat then dog occurs resulting in many contexts. 1=Cat. Many (2) = Dog and Cat.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.


This trinitarian nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts,
as one context ( ),

((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

Considering philosophy is definitive by nature, philosophy follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))


It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirely of philosophy summited under a third equation of:

(A)

which states philosophy itself, as a variation of both science and religion, is an assumed context of definition much like science and language. This nature of definition occurs through the nature of language these three facets of study exist under. The nature of the study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed.

In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exists under a trinity of equations that determine its role as both defining exterior sciences/religions/philosophies as well as internally self referencing:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))
(A)



Philosophy is both a series of equations that occurs through these equations as definition through certain laws of definition. These equations are both self referencing and expressed themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define defintion requires the same laws of definition to define it. This is a spiral.

These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" demands two assertions: that of the action and that of the opposite reaction. The first action is thetical, the second is antithetical. One is the opposite of the other thus is its negation. For example a "ball moving to the right" is a thetical assertion. The "ball not moving to the right" necessitates its antithetical assertion.

The "ball does not move to the right" necessitates the "ball moving to the left" as an opposite movement. So while the "ball not moving to the right" does not necessitate "the ball moving to the left" (as the ball can move up or down), the "ball moving to the left" is still a negative and falls under an opposite.

Laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself.

The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is called the Munchausseen Trilemma. However the original Aristotelian laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:

1. "P" is an assumed variable as a point of view of the observer.
2. (P=P) leads to an infinite regress as ((((P=P)=(Q=Q))=(R=R))=(S=S))=....
3. (P=P) has the same premise as the conclusion thus is circular.

Dually each of the laws is subject to the trilemma:

(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.

(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P

(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.

Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves in a circular self referential manner:

((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity into existing in seperate states of either one identity or the other.

(P=P)v(P=/=-P) necessitates that under the law of excluded middle either the law of identity exists or the law of non contradiction. ****If one is false, then P=-P either way. If (P=P) is false then (P=-P) and (P=/=-P) simultaneously. If (P=/=-P) is false then (P=P) and (P=-P) simultaneously

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of non contradiction where P cannot equal not P.

((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) v ((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates either the law of identity or the law of non contradiction results, thus negating either the fallacious use of the law of identity or the fallacious use of the law of non-contradiction but not both. Either the law of identity or the law of non contradiction is negated. If the law of non contradiction is negated then the law of identity ceases to exist as P = -P. If the law of identity is negated then the law of non contradiction is negated as P = -P.


On top of it Newton's Law "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" necessitates P = -P. However the Aristotle's Principle of Non Contradiction states P =/= -P. A contradiction between Newtonian physics and Aristotelian logic occurs.

The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumptions are assumed. This shows the isomorphism of one identity into another, as well as the recursion of one identity across multiple states. This results in a triad of identity properties.


1. All assertions contain underlying assertions from which they are derived, thus necessitating an underlying assertion which forms it. This results in all assertions, as deduced from another assertion, as being an inherent middle assertion.

2. All assertions invert from one assertion into another, thus necessitating an inherent emptiness to each individual assertion. This results in all assertions, as directing from one assertion to another, as being an inherently void assertion.

3. All assertions as repeating through other assertions and inherently empty, mandate the assertion as a contextual loop. All assertions, as both repetitive and empty, are a loop where each variable is an inherent contextual assertion.

To delve deeper into this:



1. Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )


All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point to further assumptions within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular and act as a middle term: (P-->P)




2. Assumption of Inherent Void {( )}


All assumptions as inverting to another assumption necessitate an inherent emptiness of the assumption. All assumptions as intrinsically empty necessitate an inherent isomorphism where one assumption inverts to many tautological assumptions. All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further assumption, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. An assumption as void negates to an assumption as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

Everytime a assumption progresses to another assumption, the new assumption contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new assumption is not the old context and contains what the prior assumption is not. Thus the new assumption always contains an absence of the old assumption in one respect, due to newness of the assumption, while it contains elements of the old assumption at the same time. This is isomorphism and isomorphism breaks down to three different degrees as a triad of dualisms.


1. Nothing into Being: (• --> P)

2. Thetical Being into Antithetical Being: (P --> -P)

3. "Nothing into Being" into "Thetical Being into Antithetical Being": (• --> P) --> (P --> -P)

All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive: {P --> (Q <--> -P)}





3. Assumption of Inherent Context {( • )}


All assumptions as recursive and void necessitates all assumptions as contexts that have both one and many meanings: one meaning as underlying many assumptions, many meanings as inverting from one assumption to another.

Assumptions as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each assumption as a center point observes each assumption as circular through recursion.

Assumptions as inherently void necessitates all assumptions as progressive linear functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.

All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars that are not being observed, each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality, is composed of particular which are empty of definition, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. In simpler terms each generality is composed of particulars, which as undefined, leave the general context as empty.

All assumptions as variables are therefore contexts. All assumptions, as contexts, are inherently empty self referential loops inverting to other empty self-referential loops, existing through the point of view of the observer:

{{(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)} --> {(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)}}

The 3 laws of Inherent Middle (Recursion), Inherent Void (Isomorphism) and Inherent Context (Loops) exist as intertwined and One and the Same:

1) The voiding of void results in One supreme context where void, as Nothingness, is negated through the act of "being".

2) This context is voided into multiple contexts as the inversion of one context into many.
2a) This single context still exists through the voiding of void which is synonymous to the negation of negation. The single context is thus continually voided into many contexts as void is not subject to being.

3) The inversion from void into being is grounded in inversion of one symmetrical state into another as isomorphism. Being, through context, is the opposite of being.

4) The multiplication of contexts, through the voiding of contexts is recursion. One context is repeated through many.

5) The repitition of contexts is a cycling of contexts. All contexts as repeated necessitates a containing of void through being. What is not is contained by what is.
5a) Each context as containing void necessitates each context as intrinsically empty.
5b) Each context as inverting from one context to another necessitates each context as progressively containing further contexts.
5c) Contexts as both empty and containing further contexts necessitate context repeat through context where all context is looped through further contexts. This looping of contexts is the containment of void through being alone.

6) The repitition of context is the inversion of Nothingness into being with this being inverted from one being into another.
6a) Isomorphism is two fold: It is the inversion of Nothingness into Being as symmetrical, and the inversion of one being into many as symmetrical.
6b) All contexts are variations of the One Context as the repitition of this isomorphism. All contexts as variations of the One Context are variations of the other contexts. The Many are variations of the One, the One is the summation of the Many as a variation of the Many.


7. The isomorphism of isomorphism, void into being and being into many being, is recursive as isomorphism is repeated.

8. The repitition of being, from one state into another, is isomorphism. Isomorphism and recursion are thetical and antithetical respectively and exist as one phenomenon through context. The recursion of context, as further contexts, is itself a context. The isomorphism of one context into many is the emptiness of context where one context contains the potential, ie "void", of another context.

9. Contexts as self contained loops, through the one context, are actual contexts. The emptiness of the contexts, as void, is the potential contexts. Contexts as actual contain contexts as potential, this actuality and potentiality exist as the context itself. The joining of the actual, to that of the potential, as in context voided from one state into many, is the context as the synthesis between symmetrical opposites.

10. All contexts as both being and inherently empty, actuality containing potentiality, isomorphism occurring through recursion, actuality through potentiality, are synthetic in nature. All contexts thus maintain simultaneous truth and false values reflecting both "being" and "nonbeing".

11. Isomorphism, recursion and the context are three different principles of being which each exist through the other.
11a) Isomorphism exists through recursion where one is repeated by its inversion into many.
11b) This containment of void, or potentiality through being, necessitates isomorphism existing through context as "being".
11c) Recursion exists through isomorphism, where the repition of being is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite as a variation of the original.
11d) This repitition of void, within the context as potential context, necessitates recursion existing through context as being.
11e) Context contains further contexts and context contains potential contexts.
11f) Context is self referential through the One context.

12) Context exists through Context as Context.

These identity properties are not limited to Aristotelian identity laws alone, but the fallacies of logic. These fallacies act as negative limits by defining what something is by what it is not. Further more the fallacies which act as negative limits to philosophy are identity properties, isomorphically, as referenced to assumptive law 2. They are identity properties by representing what a logical assertion is not.

A fallacy defines a logical argument by what it is not.

For example an argument of authority proves an argument as logical upto the point where the authority takes place of logic....the argument is logical but the authority acts as a negative limit as to where the argument is not logical.

The argument exists up to what it is not, what it is not proves what it is as a "limit" to it.

Another example a pond is defined by what it contains, water, depth, etc. It is defined by what it is not: dirt, sky, road, etc.

Proofs are both positive, what something is, and negative, what it is not. Both what an argument is and is not are required to fully define it,

However All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy.

For example the fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature.

Another example the fallacy of circularity can be expressed as: (Circularity is a fallacy because circularity is a fallacy) = Fallacy of Circularity.

In a second respect it equivocates the fallacy to a series of negative limits that define an argument by what it is not. For example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not, linear, while the fallacy of authority defines an argument by it hinging on authority at the expense of logic.

Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves. The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this circularity is a fallacy. Thus the fallacy both exists and does not exist.


1. All fallacies can be applied to other fallacies thus negating the fallacy. For example, the fallacy of circularity is circular thus negating the fallacy of circularity.

2. All fallacies as negated necessitate all fallacies as truth values. For example the fallacy of circularity negated necessitates circularity as fundamental.

3. All fallacies as continuously redefined, through the fallacies of regression and slippery slope, necessitates the fallacy as still existing. The fallacy exists as what a logical argument is not. For example circularity ceases to exist as a fallacy, yet circularity necessitates what an argument is not (linear), thus the logical argument is defined thetically and antithetical through the fallacy. a circular argument is valid because it is circular, but it is limited by its circularity. Fallacies simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

4. The thetical and antithetical nature of the fallacy, as defining an argument necessitates the fallacy as isomorphic. Isomorphism, again, is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite state. The definition of any argument, through the fallacy, requires isomorphism as a key principle. The repitition of the thesis In many different states necessitates recursion as it becomes an underlying middle term.


The isomorphic nature of fallacies and non-fallacies sets the premise for truth values where the inversion of truth to falsity, is an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. One Good inverting to many goods inverts one God into many degrees of Good, thus a lesser good resulting in the antithesis of good as evil.

For example:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)


Again If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts. Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil". This applies to all assertions as well, where the inversion from one assertion to many assertions results in many assertions where the assertions manifests in degrees thus resulting in the antithesis. This shows through recursion of the original assertion, that an isomorphism simultaneously occurs where the variation of one assertion to another results in a simulateous antithesis.

It is the these tautology of assertions, through a thesis and antithesis, which necessitate philosophy at its core being grounded in converging and diverging assumptions stemming from the point of view of the observer. This point of view begins with the assertion itself and does so under the nature of the question.

Questions are assertions.

To ask "what y is x ?", is to make an assertion y exists. Questions are assertions of facts. As assertions the fact they represent manifests an actuality/potentiality dualism where the fact presented, "y", is open to an further expression and potential definition. Y can be replaced with "color" where the question is "what color is x?"

Questions are thus the increase in definition of one variable, where this variable exists as a potential state for further actualized definition. Questions are grounded in a dynamic state within knowledge where a variable is open to further progression. As such, questions are variable regression. This variable regression necessitates questions as the manifestation of a continuum where the variable changes to a new state within a given context.

This context acts as a means of inverting one assumption to another. For example "x" acts as the means for definition of "y". Questions are thus synthetic in nature where one variable combines with another variable to produce a new variable. Respectively one context acts as a thesis that is actualized, "x", and combined with an undefined potential state, "y", which is antithetical.

Questions are thus synthetic in nature where one context acts as an actual state and the other is a potential antithetical state. Y is antithetical as potential information, X is the actual context which defines Y considering Y is open to change. The basic process of questioning results in Hegelian Synthesis. In is this synthesis between the actual and potential which results in a tautological thetical state as the answer itself where the point of view is the beginning of the tautology.

The next question of "what is the point of view?" stems from its origin, the observers, as being the formless center from which both isomorphism and recurssion occurs.

This point of view transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge, that which is observe prior to or after the senses, under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic. These principles occur both abstractly and empirically.

Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging" as the manifestation of form through our rational faculties.

Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change" as the manifestation of forms through the sense.

To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected.

Simple enough.

Abstractions are connected to abstractions.

Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.

The problem occurs with "connection":


1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomenon exist through abstractions.

2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomenon.

3. If "connection" is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.


A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. The points may be relative point particles, observed empirically, or may be a series of abstract viewpoints. Such thing as an atom may have a given form, as a series of points which summate to a sphere or looping type of shape.

The absense of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field.

Just as the Big Bang of physics originates from a point, and the Principle of explosion originates from a point of view, so do forms originate from a single source.


Take for example a single white point. It is formless and only seen for what it is against a black backdrop. Take away the black back drop and the point is fundamentally a formless abyss. Now if this formless abyss divides, a line between two points occurs as the division of the point. Formlesnesns self negates, through double negation, into form. The formless nature of any assertion self negation when the original assertion reassumes. Formless self negates into form, and this originates with the point. This point is intrinsically empty through the point of view of the observer's assumptive capacity in which reality is imprinted.

The assumption of assumption results in a tautology through the isomorphism of one assumption into many, and recursion as the underlying assumptions which stem across all of its variations. This begins with the point of view of the observer, under the Principle of explosion where from self contradiction (the formlessness of formlessness) anything follows. It also occurs under the big bang where all being occurs from the voiding of void.

An assertion breaks down into multiple assertions and resynthesizes into a single assertion. This takes the nature of a pulse. Knowledge expands then contracts then reexpands again in such a many where knowledge is a process of change as much as change itself. This process of change mandates knowledge as a dynamic entity where what is static is only an approximation of potential later states.

This expansion and contraction necessitates knowledge as circular where what has been known in previous times will eventually be revealed again in future times. An example of this would be that Rome was the height of information. It dissolved into the dark ages with less information. It steadily increased again during the middle ages then decreased. The Information Again Increased With The Enlightenment. Another example would be that the English language assumed portions of a variety of languages. For example the term "skunk" was from native American cultures. As native American language died it was assumed through new languages, such as English. The language of one culture dies, and it re-expands into a new language.

Knowledge thus takes the place of a form, as is occurs through the pulsating alternation between expansion and contraction, and as such is mandated as subsequent to form itself. This subsequentness to form necessitates knowledge as form itself where any assertion strictly exists "as is" with this "as is-ness" necessitates all assertions as having a truth value by existence alone. A truth value through existence alone is grounded in this pulsating expansion and contraction of knowledge where all assertions converge and diverge from a single point.

Reality is a series of forms superimposed upon forms with these forms acting as a means for further forms. These forms are the contexts which hold reality together through an expansion or contraction of being itself as the movement from one point into many and then back into one.

This expansion and contraction of reality is a process of movement through "folding" where one form Inverts into another. For example the expansion of a line, into a larger line, is the conversion of one line into many lines. One line Inverts two or three or form where the act of folding is the line multiplying through a series of repeated states.

A form such as a horse, from a position far away, expands as it draws relatively closer to the point of observation. It exists as a single point, then multiplies as a series of points into a form with the observer expanding relatively at the same time. The space between the observer and horse contracts simultaneously thus necessitating an inherent isomorphism that inversely occurs as expansion progresses.

As the observer's distance expands the horse contracts from one form to another form until the form is a singular point. Another example, that of a line shrinking, shows the contraction of one line into another as the line becomes less and less.

Concepts expand and contract simultaneously as well, through the manifestation of a tautology. As a concept is analyzed up close it expands into further concepts. The concept exists as a single point of observation then expands into many. Through absence of analysis the concept contracts into something simpler, again as a singular point of observation.

This expansion and contraction of concepts reflects the same nature of expansion and contraction empirically, thus showing the same nature of expansion and contraction existing across empirical and abstract forms which compose reality as the converge and divergence of points.

The point, as the origin of all forms, be it abstract or physical, thus maintains a dualistic nature.

The dualism between the point and boundless field can be observed a synonymous to the particle wave dualism. On one hand the point is formless, when observsd in a singular state, on the other hand it allows for form when observed in multiple states. This point represents the origin of both the empirical point particle of physics and the point of view of all logical assertions.

It is the synthesis of points, diverging and converging, that result in the dimensions of reality.

"Dimension", as defined, is tautological to "form" by nature as a series of complex forms which work together to form a new form. As such, through this nature of definition, we see any philosophical definition as following thr same definition mapping as the words and symbols which form it. Just as the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own, so a dimension is a complex myriad of forms which work together to form a whole.

This property of definition is universal, this universality is represented under the tautological nature of reality. One form inverts to another form, with an underlying form that exists recursively bind reality together. It is this tautology of forms, into dimensions, which show an underlying common ground between the different dimtensions of abstractness and empiricality as forms in themselves.

For example in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to whole. One form superimposes on another into a new a form.

Yet certain forms exist distinctly as abstract due to the distinction of empiricality from abstraction. The dimension of Empricality is an isomorphism of abstractness, one dimension is a recursion of the other through the origin of the point.

Empirically the form of a unicorn may only exist as a picture. In one dimension the unicorn acts as whole actualized entity, in another dimension it appears only as an image of itself.

The distinction between any set of forms, as dimensions, such as the dichotomy between abstractions and empirically sensed phenomena, occurs by the ability to align through a symmetry. For example a unicorn may exist abstractly but the absense of unicorns empirically, barring symbolism through art, sets a distinction between these dimensions.

All being, as defined consists of forms and dimensions as complex forms. All that exists stems from a singular point with the point being the center of all form.

All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by there degrees of seperation from the original point. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image with the image being synonymous to form as both give definition.

Imagination is the dimension of abstraction diverging and converging points into forms to form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. One dimension exists outside of another, thus possibly imposing form onto the other. What is imaginary is that which is given image too.

However, in these respects, the physical can be seen as imaginary, that which is given image to. It is this divergence from a single point which allows for one set of forms, be it abstract or physical, to effectively synthesize through the common source.

What "possibility" is the state of actuality of one form in one dimension and its potentiality in another. One form, in one dimension, exists at a higher level in time relative to another. Where a form may be actual under abstraction it is potentially existing empirically and vice-versa. It is the divergence of timelines, of one dimension over another, that takes into account dimensions as being seperate by time.

Possible forms are manifested empirically through the projection of an abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension.

For example a skyscraper exists as a series of abstractions. The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form, it is formless relative to the skyscraper actually existing. One state, the abstraction, exists as actual form, the other state, the empirical exists as potential form. Actuality is form, potentiality is formless. The actual projects onto the potential and the potential assfumes the imprint of the actual. Under these respects the form of the skyscraper, existing an an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, as in it is built. The form of one dimension Inverts into another dimension. One dimension projects and the other is imprinted. Formlessness assume form. What is indefinite is imprinted by what is definite.

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image. This allow for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions, where symmetrically opposite dimensions, one representing being and the other non-being, synthesize.

The Big Bang and Principle of explosion are both isomorphisms of eachother through the dualism of abstraction and empiricality.

The big bang theory observes all empirical being, condensed into a single point, expand into the variety of forms which are composed of point particles, with the laying out of point particles resulting in the forms. The one point self negated into many.

Dually the principle of explosion replicates this same pattern, all assumptions condensed into a single axiom self contradicting into the variety of assumptions, all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed axiom self negated into many.

In these respects both the big bang and principle of explosion occur through the process of self-negation and as such are inherently two dimensions, one abstract and one physical, resulting in the same phenomena.

These phenomena, both empirical contexts and abstract contexts are connected by a single point that ties the foundations of a priori and a posteriori phenomenon as one.

It is the tautology of the point, into a series of points existing as forms which results in the "void sequence".

This can be proven through a series of lines alternating into new lines. The dot represents the original point the empirical and abstract phenomena originate from, the line as the resulting form.

All phenomena result from void voiding itself into form, with form voiding itself into many forms.
Logically this sequence is a result of the Principle Explosion, where from contradiction anything results, empirically this sequence is a result of the Big Bang, where from nothingness everything results.

Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0 value points into the number line:

(0-->0)-->1,-1

**** 1= .______. --->
**** -1= <--- .______.


(1-->1)--> (2, 1/2, -2, -1/2)

*** 2= .____.____. --->
*** 1/2 = .____. --->
*** -2 <--- .____.____.
*** -1/2 <--- .____.


(1-->2)--> (3, 1/3, -3, -1/3)
*** 3 .____.____.____. --->
*** 1/3 .____. --->
*** -3 <--- .____.____.____.
*** -1/3 <--- .____.





Logically this sequence occurs from an empty assumption into variables:

(• --> •) --> A, -A


(A-->A) --> (B, A/B, -A/B, -B)

(A-->B) --> (C, A/C, -A/C, -C)


Empirically this sequence occurs from one set of qualities into another:

"Mammal" is "Cat"
(A-->B)

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "Wild Cat"
(A-->B)-->C

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "Wild Cat as Fraction of Mammal"
(A-->B)-->A/C

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "Not Wild Cat" (ie wild cat is wild cat, cat may be something else rather than wild)
(A-->B)--> -C

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "not cat is fraction of mammal" (ie cat may be drawing and as such is not mammal)
(A-->B) ---> -A/C


All words as tautologies are words as fractions.

For example:

___________measurement____________
(quality)--> (state) ---> (index) ---> (.......)


Where "measurement" is the base underlying word that grounds all subdefinitions under it. "Measurement" represents the inherent middle term that reflects through the tautology.


Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, everything stems from the divergence and reconvergence of a point through which all empirical and abstract being originates. This evolution and involution of points is a multidimensional event creating and recreating all phenomena ranging from the movements of point particles to points of awareness.

This point is both abstract and empirical thus transcending a priori and a posteriori knowledge. It can be reflected through the question: "Does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man, where an assumption is grounded in an absence of thought, is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone. We assume forms from a mode of empty mindedness. This empty mindedness is spatial. For example a line between two points is taken as axiomatic, no thought given, as the axiom itself leaves an imprint on the absence of thought behind this axiom.

The absence of any perceivable form is empty space. All forms, as self evident, are grounded in the emptiness of assumption behind them.

The same nature of empty space, as percieved through the senses, observes nothingness imprinted by being. For example, formless sand taking the form of a glass it is poured into or the rock which leaves an imprint in the sand, both exhibit form imprinting itself on the foundations of formlessness.

The empty nature of space necessitates space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

A dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness self negates, through double negation or self contradiction, into form as a logical statement) and after the senses (the drawing out of one formless point into many points resulting in a form, or the connection of point particles into a form).


Spatial axioms are simultaneously a priori and a posteriori as they can be both proven empirically and through abstraction.

Dually what mediates the abstract and empirical is space.

This is further reflected in the respect that physics breaks down to the interactions of point particles, math with the quantification of points, psychology with points of view. All abstract and empirical phenomenon are reducible to points.

Everything is grounded in the forms created by the convergence/divergence of point space; the Big Bang and Principle of explosion, through the "point", is in a state of superpositioning where it exists in many states at once. The dimensions of abstraction and empricality are superimposed.

This manifestation of multiple states at once necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. This necessitates form as a universal law.

[Eodnhoj7]

The continual repetition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; any connection of forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction as pure movement be it an empirical or abstract form.

All variations from a single source necessitate all variations as a definition of that single source. The source distinguishes itself through itself as itself as both one and many things. For example a series of monads results in parts composed of further parts as the objects which are composed of them. A series of monads work together to give foundation to its form. However each monad is fundamentally the same, thus the one is expressed through the many.

All phenomenon expand and contract from a point of origin.

An example is a particle. From a distance it appears as a point, upon magnification it appears as further particles which appear as points. The same is for an object such as a car. From a distance it appears as a point. Upon closer examination it appears as composed of points. The grounding of all phenomena is point space.

This this expansion and contraction of phenomena necessitates all phenomenon as repetitive thus cycling. However, they are instrinsically empty in themselves as one phenomenon progresses to another.

These forms as expanding and contracting are loops, in the respect they exists through shapes. These shapes are outlinable are loops given any tracing of the phenomenon's outline results in them ending in the same origin point they begin with.

For example tracing the shape of a person results in the trace ending the same point in which they began.

Creation Ex nihilo could occur through a voiding of void synonymous to the negation of negation.

This double negation, or voiding of voiding, would reflect everything stemming from a single point under the principle of explosion or the big bang. It is the premise for a circularity inherent within the capacity of all phenomena.

From contradiction anything occurs, this including the totality of being itself which is further reflected in the nature of contradiction that stems across all premises and conclusions of philosophy. However this contradiction is the grounding of all distinction.

Distinction is the divergence of one phenomena into another. This fundamental nature of division within all terms sets the foundation for all terms as potential new terms. This actuality and potentiality dualism is the grounding of an infinite regress.

An infinite regress of variables is the voiding of variables through an innate potentiality that divides an actual state into a new form. The regress of one variable is the variation of one variable into a newer variable.

"Actuality" is that which has definition. This definition is the individuation of a phenomenon into a quasi singularity. For example a car is an object which exists due to a summation of parts; the car is a summation of parts with each part being a further summation of parts. As this actuality progresses across time its potentiality begins to manifest. This potentiality is the formlessness of time which acts as a catalyst for change. For the car it maybe the removal or addition of key parts which compose it such as a mirror or motor. One actual state variates into another, much in the same manner one mirror or motor changes into another. This potentiality, as formless relative to the actual state, acts as a means of inversion, a voiding, of one state into another. This voiding of one state into another is time itself.

This voiding is the negation of one actual state into another where formlessness is the means of division of the actual form. Form is divided by formlessness, the actual is divided and multiplied through the potential.

An example of this would be a simple line. As actual it exists as a singular direction. With the addition of a 0d point, formlessness, the line individuated (divides/multiplies) into further lines. Each line is both 1/x and x of the original. A line divided into 1/2 or 1/3 lines respectively multiplies into 2 or 3 lines. What is formless, and potentiality is formlessness, inverts one actual state into another. Under these examples a point acts as a potential line, 0 acts as a potential number. It is this form manifesting into another individual form which is the process of individuation.

Individuation is the manifestation of what is actual through what is potential, it is the manifestation of the potential as a means of change of the actual. Potentiality is thus the means of movement, ie "change", where what is actual is the form itself as the change from one state into another. Actuality is thus a continuum of states, multiplying and dividing respectively through potentiality, where this continuum exists through a reflection of one form as repeating.

For example a car, which changes across time, manifests a new motor or mirror as a replication of the prior form. "Actuality" is the reflection of one form into another form, with this reflection being the mode of change through the car. This mode of change is the voiding of one state into another with the progressive change in states being the recursion of phenomena. Potentiality is the means of a form continuing across time.

This replication is the manifestation of one thing existing across time through variation. Variation is the summation of forms as one form across time, much in the same manner the car may have multiple mirrors across it's time span. These multiple mirrors are variations of the single position of the mirror on the car. Thus each phenomena, as a variable, is a summation of states existing as one individual entity synonymous to form.

Each term in philosophy thus has a formless nature where each term exists as a potential new term. This formless nature of all phenomena, including the terms which form philosophy, as potential phenomena, are summated under the premise or conclusion as a single point of awareness. This necessitates that given any assertion it will always be finite largely because of its changing context. This finiteness is the the limit of the term as an individual entity, which while subject to infinite regress, always manifests itself as some form of a singularity stemming from its original source.

It is this potentiality, as formlessness, which mandates all actualized phenomena as having a dualistic nature that defines them for what they are or are not. All phenomena as dually being actual and potential necessitates that contexts are connected across time thereby necessitating a a transfinite state.

For (A --> B), "A" must have within its capability to morph into B. B must exists in a higher temporal state across the time line for A to occur. Given that B is an effect of A, and B is a cause through A by default, all causality has a "reverse" or "retrocausal" nature where B determines A given that A exists if and only if it has a potential state in which to morph.

It is this ability for A to morph into B, and B determining that A exists, which shows that one phenomena exists in multiple superpositioned states given a larger view of a timeline in which everything exists simultaneously. The future state of being, where one formless state is given form through a larger timeline, necessitates the future is connected to the present and the past in a way which determined it.

This retrocausal nature, where A morphs into B and B determines whether if at all A exists, necessitates time as having a cyclical nature. Time is the manifestation of the same phenomena in different positions where one phenomena effectively expands and then contracts like a pulse across any given timeline. This expansion and contraction necessitates time as stretching out of a phenomena into a given form from a much higher perspective. This pulse, where the phenomena expands and contracts, further reflects that of a spiral where the potential form of a phenomena is the reactualization of it into a different form.

Potentiality is the the means through which a phenomena moves through actualization, and takes on a higher form of actualization when observed from a higher timezone in which things occur simultaneously. Time takes on the nature of a form through retrocausality.


The "explosion" of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion in logic exists at multiple states where one explosion is superimposed on top of another. With the explosion of one phenomenon comes the entropy/negentropy of another as the cycling of forms, be it abstract or physical.

A sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form and viceversa. For example a series of stones expands into the thought of a castle, and the thought of a castle contracts into the actual castle itself. The actual castle inturn expands into further thoughts of the castle and this alternation between abstraction and empiricality continues.

All forms are superimposed upon other forms, just like raindrops are collected and reformed as a stream through the corner of a roof top, so all forms collect and redirect other forms into new forms.

Again The abstraction of castle directs itself into an empirical castle.

What reality consists of is layered forms directing eachother through eachother where what is imagined, ie given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form and vice versa.

This alternation between abstraction and empiricality is underlined by "assumption" itself as being both abstract and empirical.


The nature of assumption, as both abstract and empirical, relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form.

Empirically take sand for example, it takes the imprinting of a rock dropped onto it and the rock, as being worn down by the sand, is inversely imprinted by the sand.

The same occurs where the psyche is imprinted by images through which it assumes. The psyche as a blank slate through absense of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then reprojects the pattern into a new form.

The nature of the imprintable mind is one of formlessness. It is this formlessness which receives the imprint through sensory experience or thought. An absense of an imprint is an absence of thought therefore what imprints is what manifests as thought. A thoughtless mind is that which is without form and blank. It is void.

This blank slate is self negating through self reflection; this absence of form is a point of awareness. Formlessness is negated into form where the void voids itself into a form. This first form is a circle. Being extends itself in all directions simultaneously. This circle is the projection of one's point of awareness in all directions. The act of self reflection thus is a negation of one's prior empty state into that of form.

This first form, the circle, in turn reassumes itself resulting in another circle then another circle ad infinitum until the circles act as particles within the mind's eye assembling and reassembling into newer and newer forms. These forms, as extensions of the circle's they are derived from are empty as well, thus acting as patterns through which we absorb further patterns like a sieve. Patterns which align with the patterns in the minds eye are absorbed, patterns which do not align with the patterns in the mind's eye are rejected. This beginning state of acceptance and rejection of patterns results in what we call as "bias", where patterns are assumed according to there ability to align with the angle of awareness the self originates from.

The patterns, as self assuming, are negated and divided into newer patterns through a process of self assumption. This self assumption is an act of self reflection, with this self reflection as a process of self negation where the priorly formless subjective point of awareness changes into an objective form through which the subjective self operates. What is subjective is formless. What is objective is form. All consciousness, through self reflection, begins with a negation of negation thus is cyclic by nature.

It is this nature of double negation which mandates awareness as a process of inverting forms.

The act of inverting one assumption to another occurs through the act of "counting":

1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomenon into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomenon. The Phenomenon is assumed, through a point of awareness, and its inverted into further phenomena. The point of awareness, is void in an of itself, thus the phenomena is inverted from one state of being into another. Assumption is inversive by nature as void is effectively nothing, and all assumptions are inherently void.

2. Basic division starts with measurement, basic measurement starts with forms, one basic form for reality is the line. This is inherent within the act of measurement itself. Measurement is a means of manifesting finiteness as quantity and infiniteness as quality. All measurement as grounded in the line necessitates the line as both quantity and quality.

3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of measurement.

4. The inversion of one line (or line segment considering the math community views each differently) into two lines is the inversion of one form into many forms. It is simultaneously the inversion of many forms into 1. One line into two lines is two lines as one line.

5. This division occurs through the application of a 0d point. The 0d point is formless and can be considered "void". It is purely assumed, with all assumption not only being void but fundamentally beginning with void considering the "dot" is purely assumed. All assumption is thus the voiding of a form through the context of the observer. This context of the observer, as inherently empty, inverts the form(s) into one or many further form(s).

6. One form Inverts to many forms through "voiding" of unity. This voiding of unity results it inverting into multiple unities. We see this with the voiding of one line resulting in many lines which still individually are lines. For example, the line is assumed, thus it Inverts from one form into another. The line may be inverted into multiple lines or take the form of a square or horse, with the respective forms being composed of fractal lines. Thus one line exists through many

7. Thus formlessness, as void, negates form into forms but form always exists. Thus the voiding of a phenomena, by assuming it, is "change". Change is the inversion of form through formlessness.

8. Void is nothing in itself, it cannot be observed as nothing is "there" to observe. All we can see are multiple states. Using a glass of water and air as example: half is full of water, half is full of air. The dividing line in the middle observes the inversion of one substance (air or water) into another substance (respectively water or air).

Another example may be a rose in the garden. The rose is individuated within its inherent context of the field and garden by its respective "curvature". Even the color scheme is grounded in how light curves, or rather is composed of curves. Its smell follows the same manner as the relation of particles that exist through the relative curvature in which they exist. Getting down to the subatomic level we are left with the particle itself being fundamentally empty except for curvature.

This recursion of curvature, which forms the phenomenon, is grounded in the basic isomorphism of a simple line into multiple states simultaneously.

9. Void as formless, is thus indefinite. It cannot be defined much like infinity cannot be defined. Thus it is always voiding itself. The voiding of void is form, as Nothingness is not only a self negating concept that creates a concept of "no-thing" but also perpetually negates form as well.

10. So void voids itself because is not really there, as "form". This may sound like a play on words, but step back and think about it. Infinite(void) 0d points(void) result in the "line". The point negates itself through the line. The line however is effectively the point given movement with all movement occurring through direction.

The point inverting itself into another point necessitates the point voiding itself through itself, thus the point necessitates a projection in one infinite set of directions as 1 set of directions. This can be observed as the circle being infinite lines stemming from a center point. Thus not only does all recursion and inversion necessitate progress but a cycle as well.


The inversion of one point into another point as two points results in the point as nothing becoming something.

The same phenomena occurs with:

Mass projecting itself as volume.
0 projecting itself to 1, then 1 again as 2, 3, 4, etc. on the number line.
Self reflection where a state of boredom results in a spontaneous thought or action as a "form".

This corresponds with the act of awareness itself, as assumption is in itself empty. The assumption of assumption is the beginning of I as a context that is both assumed and assumes.

11. This form is thus infinite as well until it is voided into multiple forms in which case it becomes finite. One line is indefinite, considering the voiding of void is indefinite, until the form is voided into multiple forms. This continual division of lines simultaneously results in the continual multiplication of lines. The same occurs with any form as a "quality" whether is be a color as frequencies or the form of the horse.

Thus the line or form (as recursion of the line) is a quality considering it is composed of infinite fractals as a boundary of change. The line/form, as continually manifesting into further lines forms, is thus an "infinity" in itself with each line/form as a finite entity being multiple infinites.

12. So to summarize:

A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line/form.

B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voids into multiple lines.

C. The continual manifestation of forms results in one set of forms. The line is composed of infinite lines as one set. This continuity is grounded in void, where void as nothing necessitates a continuity of form which is infinite with any finiteness being them relation of multiple forms which are inherently infinite.

D. The nature of consciousness as grounded in assumption, necessitates space as fundamentally aware, with all reasoning grounded in basic platonic entities. Thus technology, as a projection of inherently assumed axioms, is strictly a means of using curvature (tool) to invert further curvature(elements) under a self reciprocating cycle.

Labels, as in complex symbols that summate a set of relations, are acts of counting in and of themselves and as such follow the same nature as the above. "Counting" and "Naming" are dualisms of the same nature of "measurement" where one may place a strictly emphasis on quantity, and the other respectively as "quality", the natures are isomorphic.

All systems of measurement consist of the same phenomena which they measure thus causing a self referential cycle to occur. This self referentiality necessitates measurement to be a process of the phenomena diverging and reconverging into a new form. For example in the measurement of electrons, a test apparatus must be developed which is composed of the very same electrons it is measuring. The electrons are diverged, from those being tested, and reconverged, into the test apparatus itself. The formation of the test apparatus is the formation of the phenomenon being tested.

This inversion of one form into another reflects the inversion of one set into another as a fractal.

The Set of all Sets is a Member of Itself.

1. A set exists. This set is equivalent to P=P and therefore is circular. As circular it is intrinsically empty of meaning in and of itself.

An example of this set can be presented as a line. A line is composed of further lines thus is a set (ie a set of lines). Each line simultaneously represents a loop considering both the beginning point and end point are the same.





2. The set as intrinsically empty inverts into a new set. This new set is Q=Q. Q=Q is a variation of P=P as ((P=P)=(P=P)). As circular, through P=P, Q=Q is intrinsically empty of meaning in and of itself unless it Inverts into a new set and this set Inverts into a new set ad infinitum.

An example of this set would be a single line inverting to two lines. One line exists composed of 2 1/2 lines. Each line is 1 line as 1/2 of the original. As the set of line converts to further lines so does the original line progress from 2 1/2 lines to 3 1/3 lines to 4 1/4 lines, etc. Each line, as a fraction of the original yet a singular line in itself, inverts to further lines as well so that fractions contain fractions and multiples contain multiples.





3. P=P contains Q=Q. Q=Q is a variation of P=P, thus for P=P to contain Q=Q, P=P must contain itself as ((P=P)=((P=P)).

An example of this would be 1 line containing 2 1/2 lines. Each 1/2 is a singular line in itself thus equal to the original in the respect both the original line and the variation are equal to 1 line on their own terms. 1 contains 2 thus 2 as a variation of 1 contains 1. Each subset, as a variation of the original, contains the original as both a fraction and fractal. The set contains itself through fractions and fractals which are multiples of the original set. A subset therefore is a recursion of the original set and as such the set contains itself.





4. The set as containing itself is equivalent to an empty loop containing an empty loop. This loop within a loop is synonymous to a line within a line. This is considering the line contains the same beginning and end points as the 0d point itself. Each line, or loop, within a line, or loop, is the same set repeating itself through further subsets. This summation of lines, or loops, as both the set and the set within the sets necessitates an inherent emptiness of all sets.

This can be pictured under a series of rings within rings. Each ring within a ring necessitates both the outer ring as intrinsically empty, through the rings it contains as being empty, as well as being full of rings. The outer ring is thus simultaneously empty and full of rings; therefore what we understand of the set is a dynamic entity where it is a means of inverting one set into another through a series of fractions and fractals. The set is an observation of recurssion, as repetition, and isomorphism, as the inversion from one symmetrical state into another.

The nature of sets through sets applies to the nature of all terms that compose language.

All Language is Rings within Rings.

1. All terms as subject to the law of identity, P=P, are circular.

2. This circularity necessitates each term as intrinsically empty.

3. As intrinsically empty each terms continues to a further term to justify it. This justification is the replication of terms that results in a symmetry being phenomena as the phenomena being repeated. This repetition, as justification, is structure.

4. One term inverts to another term as a subset of the original term thus resulting in a fraction of that term as a fractal.

5. Each term as fractal/fraction of the original necessitates the original term being produced in continual variation. This variation necessitates each term as a variable. Each variable, as composed of further variables necessitates the variable as a boundary of change. The term, as composed of further terms, is a summation of progressive terms thus is ever changing. A term, as a variable, is progressive change.

6. The term, as a boundary of change, is a summation of the progressive terms which define it, thus necessitating the law of identity as a boundary of change. This change is progression and this progression is repeated across all terms, even the terms which compose the original term. Each term is thus a progression of progression where any intrinsic meaning is derived implicitly through use.


This applies to numbers as well.

1. All numbers are grounded in the ability to quantify a phenomenon.

2. This quantification begins with basic forms.

3. The most basic form is the line.

4. The line is the projection of a point towards another point.

5. The negation of negation, as the voiding of void, is the point projecting to a line.

6. This line is the beginning of quantity as form.

7. The line is 0=0. This 0=0, as x=x, is 1=1. ((0=0)=(1=1))=(x=x)

8. The projection of 0, as 0=0 through the line, results in the first quantity.

This act of inversion occurs within arithmetic as well:

1. A line exists.
2. This line is divided in half.
3. Each half of the line is 1 line as 2 lines.
4. Division and multiplication occur simultaneously and are inseperable.
5. A line is added to another line.
6. This one line is now two lines thus subtracting half of the original line.
7. Subtraction and addition occur simultaneously and are inseperable.

This circularity is universal:

1. The negation of negation leads to a positive.

2. The positive of a positive necessitates grades of being thus a negative.

3. The doubling of a phenomenon, be it double positives or double negatives, results in the cycling of a phenomenon where all phenomena are grounded in a circularity.

4. This circularity begins with the repetition of phenomena, thus repetition is the foundation for being.

5. The inversion of one phenomena into another form, where previous forms are repeated in a new variation (ex: 4 legs and a tail repeats itself across various types of mammals like a dog or cat for example), observes a foundation for repetition.

6. The repetition of one form inverting into another observes repetition as the foundation for this inversion.

7. Repetition and inversion cycle between eachother through contexts of existence. This context is the principle of identity itself as (P=P).

(P=P) is repetitive and circular.

(P=P)=((Q=Q)=((P=P)=(P=P))) is the inversion of one phenomenon to another. What is constant is the context itself (...).



The nature of consciousnes is the awareness of forms where the form is imprinted on the psyche and inverting to a further form. It is the nature of forms occuring through forms, where each form is a phenomena observed "as is" where a form is observed as evident by existence alone. This inversion of one form to another, which sets the foundation for counting, and all measurement as label application by default, hence reasoning by default, again reflects the dichotomy between what is abstract and what is empirical.

It is this dualism between the abstraction and physical that underlies a common middle context of "form" which binds reality together.

An example of this would be a house.

Does a house gain structure through the materials or the form? It is the form which binds the materials together with space acting as the glue which holds the house together. The house exists because of rectangles and triangles, not because of the wooden beams. Matter is shape.

Under a unified version of the universe, where all exists as one, movement becomes static and is observed as only an approximation of the one. This movement is expressed through form, where form is a summation of movements.

For example a car going about in circles shows a series of movements. From a seperate time zone, where all movements exist as one, the cars movements appear as a static circle. These movements cannot occur excepting through a looping pattern through which they result. All potential movement, given a car driving in circles in actual time, is derived from a form which transcends all the movements...ie the loop in this case.

Movement exists through form, where form acts as the glue which holds reality together. Thus static forms are instrumental in determining the movements of the phenomenon. The car moves only because the loop exists, the car does not create the loop, the loop creates the movements of the car. Each movement of the car is an approximation, a part of, the loop through which it manifests.

The same applies to a logical argument, does an argument gain structure through propositions or form? It is the form which binds the propositions together. The argument exists because of linearism, circularity and the point of awareness it represents.

This form occurs through recursion, where one phenomena repeats into another.

Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

It is the dynamic state under which being inverts and repeats into further being, that necessitates assumption as being a process of change within what we considering philosophy and reason as it is a static state defined by philosophy and reason.

Being is a series of movements within movements, with each movement existing as a timezone. A timezone is the summation of parts which exist within further parts as a whole. Time, as definitive, reverts again to dualism between generals and particulars, definition and no definition.

For example, water dripping from a roof is the number of lengths a particle revolves as a series of circumference that unfurl into a line.

Stated in simpler terms a second is a series of revolutions of a particle existing as a series of circumferances. This series of circumferances acts as a series of lines considering the circumferance unravels into a series of lines.

What we consider as movements is multiple lengths of space forming ratios.

These same ratios which form lines are the same linear ratios where a word, as a series of linear definitions, is composed of a further series of progressive definitions. One set of progressive definitions exists inside of another.

Time is a series of linear forms existing within linear forms, and as such is a ratio of spaces. It is this nature of spaces within spaces that time is composed of forms which supercede it.

All movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. The car can only drive in a circle if the form of the circle exists as a glue which holds the movements together.


Form is space which binds reality. This same nature of form as glue occurs through reasoning: an argument exists because it is linear or circular. A progresses to B through a circular recursion of A and a linear voiding into B.

All phenomena are thus grounded in the reoccurrence of forms.

Take for example a rectangle: □

Inversely the shape which space takes through the rectangle is: ■

The form of the rectangle, □, repeats itself through isomorphism as, ■, where ■ is not only the inverse of □ but is a summation of a series of □ which exists much like Russian Mirror Dolls.

Dually this isomorphism and recurssion occurs through the 1d Line and 2d circle. A line on its side is a 1 dimensional representation of a 2 dimensional circle. Take a clock on its side an attach a light to one of the hands. On its side the light moves back an forth in the form of a line.

The alternation between points necessitates a single point as inverting from one direction to another, resulting in an isomorphism of directions. Isomorphism, as the self negation of one phenomenon into its polar opposite necessitates the first cyclical form.

This inversion observes the first degree of replication of movements where this replication is the looping of said phenomena given the beginning and end results in the same point of awareness. A line going in one direction, then another, shows the same 1d line repeating.

Inversion, as isomorphism, is self negation. Self negation is a loop which results in recursion as another loop. This alternation between isomorphism and repetition in itself is another loop as isomorphism repeats and recursion self negates to isomorphism. Looping thus follows its own nature and is expressed linearly as well as circulary. The line and circles are two degrees of the same phenomenon observed from different angles, thus is subject to the point of view from which they originate.

This point of view begins with the point itself expressing itself dualistically through the line and circle as one and the same phenomenon. This point of awareness, between the line and circle acts as a means of inversion between the phenomenon. The point inverting into another point, thus repeating, is the grounding of isomorphism and recursion. One point self negates into another point.

This negation of the point, through a voiding of voiding, is circular in one respect as self negation is cyclical. This self negation of the point results in it projecting in one direction as a line. Dually it results in a projection in all directions, at one time, as the circle. The point, specifically the point of awareness which begins with the point, acts as a means of inversion with this inversion being a repetition. It is the inversion of the point, into another point, which dually inverts into the repetition of the point. Isomorphism results in recursion and recursion results in isomorphism.

This angle of awareness reflects further through the spiral where the spiral as an ever expanding circle, which when turned on its side becomes a wave. This wave is a series of alternating lines as an ever expanding series of rings within rings.

Thus all phenomena, as expressed through a spiral or wave, are the approximation of a series of static lines and circles through the summation of their movements. The spiral and wave is strictly the act of the line and circle moving through time with time being the approximation of a single unified static form. One unified state is observed through a series of parts, each part is an approximation of a whole. Thus whole is represented through a 1d line and 2d circle reflected from a single point. The point, line and circle are 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.


Space takes form through form. Form and space are inseperable.

This beginning of form, through space, begins with a process of assumption:

1. All being occurs through a process of imprinting.

2. This imprinting is the inversion of one pattern into another as isomorphism.

3. A formless state receives the imprint of a form. This formless state may be the subconsciousness or a material such as sand. The form projects itself onto that which is formless. A thought may imprint itself on the subconscious or a rock imprints itself upon sand.

4. This imprinting is the repetition of one pattern into a new state as the new pattern.

5. All being as imprintable necessitates all being as assumptive by nature. Imprintation is the assumption of patterns where a previous lack of patterns assumes a new pattern.

6. This inversion of one pattern into another is the division of the pattern from one state into many. Form is divided by what is formless. An example of this would be a point and line. The line, as a form, is divided by what is formless, a point, into a new line. One form Inverts into another through formlessness. Another example would be a rock and sand. The sand as formless divides the imprint of the rock into a new imprint of the rock itself through the sand.

7. The projection of the form is the formlessness of formlessness, or a double negation where that which is without form, void, is further voided into form. This double negation, of which is formless and void, necessitates the first underlying form as a cycle where what is formless negates into a pattern which projects in all directions given the only boundaries which limit this form are void.

8. It is this double negation, the voiding of void or formlessness of form, which necessitates the beginning of any underlying pattern as a cycle. The voiding of void results in the first pattern, a pattern which is intrinsically empty as it contains void. This new pattern, the sphere, in turn imprints itself through itself as intrinsically empty, thus resulting in new spheres. The first pattern assumes itself thus inverting from one state into many.

9. These many spheres, as point particles or monads, rearrange into an infinite variety of shapes as there relationships to eachother resulting from a continual process of self assuming. Each pattern, as intrinsically empty, is imprinted through itself into a variety of shapes and forms where each pattern Inverts into a new pattern with an infinite variety of patterns as the expression of being in infinite multiplicity. The underlying void, which is not subject to being, continually assumes new patterns.

10. Void voids itself into a pattern, this pattern is thus reassumed by the void and Inverts into a new pattern where the void Inverts one pattern into many. The act of assumptions is the inversion of one pattern into many, with this inversion being the repetition of patterns. The first pattern being that of a cycle, considering in void "being" projects into all directs, in turn inverts into many patterns.


What we understand of reality is forms which exist through forms and this form exists recursively and isomorphically producing further form. Form is movement and this movement occurs through cycles:

1. A circle is intrinsically empty.

2. The emptiness of the circle is imprinted by the circle resulting in one circle inverting into another circle.

3. The inversion of one circle into another, as self assuming, necessitates the replication of the circle.

4. The replication of the circle results in multiple circles which in turn form shapes which are intrinsically empty as they are composed of forms which are empty.

5. These forms, as empty, in turn self assume resulting in the replications of these forms.

6. Each form, as traceable, exists as variations of circle as their beginning points of any tracing result in the same point as the end.

7. One circle inverts to many, many invert to a form, this form exists as a loop. One loop Inverts to many.



It is this replication and isomorphism of phenomena that deem its truth value as something is deemed real based upon its ability to replicate across time. This is exhibited in basic programming under binary code and the inversion from 1 to 0. It it also expressed within the scientific method as the replication of results, where they hypothesis as unproven inverts into results which are proven. The replication of forms, and their inversion into other forms, necessitates symmetry as order and this order occuring under basic forms which superimpose across reality. For example a car making a zigzag is the repetition of alternating lines from the perspective of a larger timezone.


Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness under the expansion and contraction of form. In simpler terms, all being, expands and contracts repeated through a point.

It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being". One form of isomorphism Inverts into another form of isomorphiom: void Inverts to being, and one being Inverts to many being, with both "void to being" and "being to many being" inverting between the other.

This origin of being, represented by the omnipresent point, is the primordial symbol representing the origin of all things.

All symbols and acts of quantification and qualification begin with the expression of the dot which gain there origin beginning with a single point in space. Even the formation of symbols themselves, through drawing or painting, begin with a single point as a dot.

It is the replication of the point which necessitates it as undergoing a cycle through recursion. The progression of one point to another is the progression away from an origin back to its origin.

This cycling through repetition necessitates the circle as a symbol of maintenance representing the repetition of phenomena that gives precedence to order. That which repeats exists through a symmetry across time and space much like a habit that gives identity. We deem something as true based upon its ability to replicate, be it ones character through habit, scientific truths or the replication of lines to form a rectangle.

This inversion of one point to another is thus represented by the line. Symbolically it represents intelligence, under the nature of analysis ,where one phenomena progresses to another. This progress from one phenomena through another dually shows all phenomena as connected by an inherent middle of the phenomena itself where each phenomena is intrinsically empty of itself. Thus the line, representing intelligence, dually shows the connection of phenomena.


Truth is "existence", with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being. This centerpoint can be called "God", with the circumferance being the range of being which extends from and through the "Creator".

The convergence and divergence of points (of view) within philosophy, from a single point (of awareness) gives a deeper analysis to the nature of definition. This deeper analysis, grounded in the simple convergence and divergence of the point, reflects all truth as being expressed through geometric forms.

Just like 1 point takes the same form as an infinite number of points (insert image) , so defintion takes the same manner in reasoning.


One assumption is broken down into so many assumptions, that proof begins to take the same form as the original assertion thus becoming an assertion again. This is a paradox of definition, as things become more defined they become less defined as a result.

The failure of definition in philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. It is the absence of self referentiality in philosophy which causes its problems. To add further paradox to paradox, the foundations of philosophy under metaphysics as "being qua being", observes this recursive nature of self assuming forms as inherent within its nature.

This is grounded within the Munchauseen Trilemma where:


1. All being exists as assumed through a process of imprinting upon what is formless. This imprint can be on the subconsciousness or it may be the imprint of something of form, such as a rock, onto something else which is formless such as sand. All being exists through a process of imprinting which allows for the phenomena to exist as repeating through time.

2. Infinite regress occurs through an ever changing "now", where "now" acts as the perpetual means, between future and past, as the change of phenomenon.

3. The continual circularity of phenomenon occurs through the replication of the phenomenon across time. One thing repeating, such as a particle repeating itself across space through time, is the cycling of a phenomena.


Considering all of philosophy begins with propositions, which are assumed, the failure in acknowledging propositions as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole which regresses back to the paradoxical "point" of it, "the point".

Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This couldn't be more false, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where form, through assumption, is first and foremost.

The continual regression of assumptions leads to all facts broken down to exist as atomic facts. These atomic facts, as points of observation, are reduced to further points of observation.

The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction. The point of awareness, as a boundless formless space, is the recursion of one point of view into another point of view as a point particle or atomic fact.

This recursion and isomorphism of points, necessitates that when determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective. This point of awareness can begin with any proposition as the point of awareness underlies all phenomena through recursion.

Paradoxically there are no formal rules for deciding this other than the inversion of one perspective to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.

This leaves "isomorphism" and "recursion" as universal principles embodied through an ever present context of awareness. The convergence and divergence of phenomena into points necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Abstractions and empirical senses are intuitively directed to a center point continuously.

Thus the most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed" with the point being the empty context through which we observe reality under a continual imprinting.

It is the assumption and resumption of patterns that reflect "comprehensibility" as the ability to connect assumed patterns through prior patterns we assumed.

Yet "comprehensibilty" is the prerequisite to "incomprehensibility".

What is well defined and clear is made so in order to break the definition down into something unclear and vague. Clarity is unity, multiplicity is vagueness. The assumption of one set of patterns Inverts into a series of newer patterns under the inversive nature of observation through the point of awareness. The formless nature of the point inverts our set of forms into another.

In making terms simple they become complicated. In making things complicated they become simple. The act of definition is thus grounded in a revolution between one and many terms where something is broken apart and put back together.

Philosophy and science are thus alchemical, this alchemy is the convergence and divergence of points as the putting together and tearing apart of definition.

It is the creation and recreation of definitions which causes philosophy to crumble under the gravity of terms alone. What defined one assumption, through another, eventually becomes a series of assumptions which causes the meaning of the original assumption to crumble.

Propositions are the summation of relations between parts. Under this definition all word creation, as the summation of relations between words, differs little from proposition creation; both principles and words are the application of boundary to a previously formless phenomenon.

There is no propposition defining how to make propositions, beyond this aforementioned alchemy of thought.

Proposition creation is not subject to any proposition without referring back to an inherently empty assumption, therefore an empty proposition.

Thus what we understand as a proposition is a group assertion or the projection of some self reflected thought. It is the alignment as symmetry of subjective states under a recursive common bond. In simpler terms, a group of people see something which reflects across their subjective experiences as common and this in turn allows for objectivity.

This group alignment of points of view reflects geometrically as an alignment of points considering the same emptiness of the point in geometry mirrors the assumptive nature of the mind as empty of thought. Even the act of measurement itself, through counting, is grounded in spatial forms.

Numbers are means for quantifying reality.

This quantification requires counting, where one phenomenon is separated from another or united: In counting 2 oranges we unite them into one set in one respect while observing that 1 orange exists in a variety of states as 2 oranges in a seperate respect.

Numbers do not exist without counting, and the most basic form of counting is observing symbols.

The most basic symbol is the point considering all empirical phenomena exist as a point in the distance or are composed of points up close (ie jagged edges in the curves). Also it is a universal axiom that represents space and we use intuitively to measure time.

The point is effectively just "space". You cannot seperate counting from this basic assumption.

It is the converging and diverging of points, be it a point of view or point particle, which results in forms which mirror this same nature as the point of which they are composed. It is the alternation between converging and diverging forms that philosophy lies within a dualism between obscurity and lucidity under this alternation between "oneness" and "manyness".


It is through this dualism that obscurity and lucidity synthesize into "as is-ness". At best philosophy, and the sciences by proxy, can provide definition that is strictly assumed.

In turn these assumptions are the summation of forms into a single point as a "perspective" or empirical "particle". Either way these summations result in a "point".

A series of phenomena are defined within a phenomenon with this summation being a self-referential loop through what it contains.

For example the variable of B is composed of A self referencing into a new form, the parts of a dog (such as legs, teeth and hair) self referencing into a new form such as a cat, or 3 being composed of 1 added together self-referentially.

Rationality is fundamental a spiral represented by loop creation. Under these terms all being is connected by context alone.

Philosophy, and the sciences and religions by proxy, under it's own terms is always problematic.
It deals with the continual definition and redefinition of assumptions which occur in cycles. At best philosophy, and its off branches of knowledge, becomes the art of painting pictures with words and as such is an art that is an expression of a subjective state of affairs as an angle of observation.

The paradox of all of this is that what we know is grounded in paradox, through these ever branching dichotomies with these dichotomies being grounded in the dualism between isomorphism and recurssion.

The nature of paradox within philosophy again necessitates isomorphism as a general principle: all thesis' result in a symmetrical antithesis as an inversion of the thesis. The isomorphism of isomorphism is recurssion, where the inversive change of isomorphism is antithetical to the continual repitition of recursion. Dually this repitition of isomorphism, between thesis and antithesis, again necessitates a second universal principle of recursion within philosophy.

The isomorphism between thesis and antithesis, in philosophy, and this reptition as recursion, necessitates a third principle of philosophy being the creation of empty loops as contexts. Philosophy is context creation as asserted loops which invert to further loops.

These loops as contexts, as a universal phenomena, breaks down to a hyper primitive underlying logic which can mean just about anything due to a problem of syntax. Context inverting to an opposing symmetrical context, and then repeating leaves no real syntax for understanding the underlying rules for any logical argument other than principles of isomorphism and recurssion which can be applied to just about anything.

The only syntax is form, and this form is a progressive loop. This looping begins within basic arithmetic but reflects elsewhere. For example, all arithmetic foundations are tautological and circular:

1. The subtraction of subtraction is addition through double negation:

(-1-1=-2)=(-1+-1=-2)



2. Division is further the subtraction of subtraction, as the number of times x may be subtracted until point zero is reached:

(6/3=2) = (6-3-3=0)



3. The addition of addition is the number of times x may be added to another:

(3×2=6) = (2+2+2=6)

The only syntax rule is a circularity, yet syntax rules would require a regress outside the system leading to a variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel's incompleteness theorem in simple terms states all rules are defined by an outside set of rules which are undefined.

However if syntax is to be grounded in circularity the rules would have to be self referencing, and a context within context observes this, thus the framework would have to be descriptive by nature.

This descriptive nature again would be a loop.

As self referencing it would be subject to double positives and double negative simultaneously, as both are selfreferential loops by nature. Double positives lead to a negative, and double negatives lead to a positive. One rule is an isomorphism of the other, with both being grounded in a proof through contradiction whose self referentiality lies in recursion.

Double negatives are the foundation for all math and logic.

-1-1=-2 results in the first act of addition where addition results from self reference of negative numbers as subtraction. Addition is the subtraction of subtraction.

(-P --> -P) --> (P-->P) --> (Q --> (-P --> -P))... occurs simultaneously in logic, where negative P and negative P negate into positive P with P inverting back into a simultaneous negative P due to Q containing antithetical elements as to what P is not.

Recursion of negatives is a foundation of math and logic.

Dually double positives occur: The repitition of positives necessitates a negative.

This occurs within the basic number line as well.

1 and 1 have 0 distance between them...this is the first thesis/thesis as antithesis.

1 and 1 necessitate 0 when counting it on a number line.

1 and 2 have one line between them where this number is -1 if the numbers are to be equal. The variation of 1 into 2 necessitates 2 is a grade of 1 as it is composed of 1...it is a fragment of 1 strictly by observing a number line as multiple 1 line segments. The difference between a positive 1 and a positive 2 is negative one.

The same occurs for the difference between a positive 1 and positive 3...a negative two.

The same occurs for 3 and 7...-4

So a positive and a positive, requires a variation of the original positive into grades, with the grades as different due to a seperation necessitating antithetical or negative elements.

An example using the number line would be you have 3 progressing to 7. 7 is a variation of 1, thus when it goes from 7 to 1 (right to left just like the negative number line) you have -4 as superpositioned within the positive number line.

Another example, previously stated:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)

If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts.

Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil".

Good in a state of multiple degrees shows Good as being intrinsically negated, thus a positive (or thesis) as directed towards another positive (thesis) results in its antiththetical nature.


The rule of double positives and double negatives are grounded in self referentiality until a contradiction occurs, much in the same manner the voiding of void results in the Big Bang, the contradiction of contradiction results in the Principle of Explosion, as well as the assumption of assumption (through metaphysics as "being qua being") results in the form of all knowledge as we see fit.

Double negatives and double positives self referentially alternate:


(-A --> -A) --> A
The not cat is the not cat therefore cat. This necessitates cat as existing where the negation of one phenomena necessitates a non negated state as existing.

(A -> A) --> (B <--> -A)
The cat is the cat therefore x type of cat exists if and only of a not cat exists. This necessitates x type of cat existing considering one being progresses to a type of that being through a regression with x being what is not a cat. For example "bengal" or "wild" is a phenomena which is not limited to cat thus is a phenomena which is not cat is produced through the regression.

(-A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)
The not cat necessitates cat as existing therefore x type of cat exists if and only if not cat exists. The cat as existing necessitates a type of cat as existing. This type of cat existing necessitates a phenomena, as the type, existing which is not cat.

All truths are simultaneously true and false dependent upon context, thus making all truth as a matter of symmetry between contexts as the recursion of variables. For example, a square and triangle may differ but unite through the common limit of the line as a set of forms.


It is this nature of regressive contexts that a primative underlying logic occurs. Cycling back to the question of syntax in determining the validity of rules behind logic we are left with contexts as loops. All truth, as both existing and "existence as is", is context.

In determining a syntax for the rules of a logical system derived from context alone leaves us with a very general logic which can mean just about anything as it underlies everything. A logic describing everything would paradoxically mean just about nothing...at least almost nothing, as it still models the most basic nature of logic, that of description.


So in forming this basic logic, considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be:

"( )" for "context"
"{ }" for "context of contexts"
"[ ]" for "transitional context"
"/" "modality of context"
"-->" for "transition of one context to another"
"•" as the "fundamental variable"


A simple statement such as "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:

{(Cat) [eats-->](Food/Cat)}

-->{(We)[Bought-->](Cat/Food)}

Or "The sky is blue"
(Sky)[is-->](Blue)


Or for math

1+2=3
{+1-->(+1-->+1)}-->+3

4÷2=2
(+4/+2) --> +2


All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature. This is considering inference and implication shows what may occur therefore it would be expressed as modalities. All modalities are fractions and fractals. A modality, as descriptive, is a fractal by nature considering what is expressed is one context existing as a part of another.

"The cat eating the food implies the cat is hungry"
{(C/E)(F)}/(C/H)

The logic is primitive yet represents the underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break it down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry.