Philosophy is Symbol Creation

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy, specifically the modern post presocratic sense, is story creation. Whoever gives the greatest degree of definition creates a story. This story is embodied within the psyche, forming and guiding perspective, and takes on a God complex.

We equate brilliance with definition for definition sparkles, much like the stars in the night sky. But underneath these definitions, between the lines, is an isomorphism of formlessness.

The greater the definition the greater the philosopher. With the increase in definitions comes an increase in interpretations. Thus philosophers such as kant or neitzche are "great" not because of the great degree of detail, but because this great degree of detail allows for a variety of interpretations that can equivocate to anything.

They are great because when we see them we see "us", and this mirror results in the narcissus myth hidden behind the nature of much of logic and reason.

Grind a stone to dust. Grind a fact to atomic facts.
Melt the dust. Melt the facts.
....and you get a glass mirror.


In these respects philosophy takes on a ritualistic nature of creating symbols, with these symbols being gods as they direct the psyche. Symbolism, is god creation. Definition, or rather story telling, is the worship of these gods.

This symbol creation is the creation of analogies.

Analogies are phenomena.

All phenomena, including analogies, exist as part of a continuum of phenomena.

This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

All phenomena, including analogies, lead to further phenomena.

All phenomena exist as parts of a continuum because one phenomena changes into another.

This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum. Why? Because phenomenon are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself.

Intelligence is subject to infinite grades. One can have no "skill" in math or language, but possess the skill to create a sculpture out of "x" random material, or to manipulate other's in converations (or dually be empathetic), with each of these respective skills having degrees of "intelligence" as subsets (ie one may be a genius with metal, but not plastic or one may be skilled with certain personalities, but not other's).

The best proof of intelligence is creativity, the ability to take "nothing" and invert it into "something".

This is the origin of the word "genius": "gen"

Genesis
Generator
Generate (en"gin"eer)
Genitals
Genie (create a reality through a wish)
Generation
Genes (embodying a spiral form which resonates with "creation" at the symbolic level)
Genetics
Genealogy
Genial
General
Generality
Generalization
...etc....


This deals within an innate archetype of the psyche: Dualism embodied through the tension between light and darkness, where "darkness" is akin to a formless mass of "knowledge" (embodied by a problem which inherently is a mass of information that maintains no connection) that is inverted into a form through the "light of reason" acting as a divisor.

This is akin to volume (form) dividing mass (formlessness) to result in density (form/formless dualism), using an analogy of physics.

Or "="(form) dividing 0 (formless) into 0=0 (form/formless dualism) where "=" represents the first function and symbol of "1" intuitively, using an analogy of math and basic Aristotelian identity logic.
***This is considering 1 gains its identity as 1 through "=" which can be observed under the law of identity as "0=0" giving premise to the first symbol of "=" as a prerequisite to not just "1" but also basic geometry lines between points "⇄ as ↔" at the intuitive level.

Or a 1 dimensional line (form) dividing 0d space (formlessness) to result in further lines (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of geometry.

Or a a phallus (form) dividing a yani (formlessness) to result in further organisms (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of sex/reproduction.
***sperm (linear form) and egg (emptiness) also suffice.

Or a general of an army (Intelligence as "formation" of definition) dividing a mass of troops (formlessness as absent of unity or order) to result in further units (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of military.

Or a generator (of any source material or computer) (form) dividing a mass of material or energy (formlessness) into further units of material/energy (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of engineering.

Or geniality as "manners" (social ritual)(form) dividing a mass of unformed behavior (base instincts) into further degrees of inherent societal norms as a containment of base instincts (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of basic social behavior.

Or generalization (form) of abstract or material particulars (formless) into further degrees of inherent categories/types (form/formless) as a containment of knowledge and experience using an analogy of intellectual and intuitive reasoning.

Or particulars as "context" (form) of abstract or material generals (formless) into further degrees of inherent contexts (form/formless) as a containment of knowledge and experience using an analogy of intellectual and intuitive reasoning.

Or paradox (form) as the synthesis through the unifying of contradiction (formlessness through dualism) into further degrees of pardox/contradiction) as a dynamic synthesis using an analogy of "absurdity".

Or "static" (form) as the inversion of dynamic change (formless) into a continuum.

And "and" as the unity (form) of all "or"s (formlessness through dualism)....within the "language of being" through:

"Abstraction" (form) as the unity of "materiality" (formlessness as change) through:

"True" (form) as the negation of "Falsity" through "Falsity".

But most of all: "Genesis" where "light" as an empirical or abstract entity (forms) divides "darkness" (the void of being) through "darkness into "being" (form/formlessness) as a containment of "chaos" using an analogy of various creation myths.

"All" (form) encapsulates "Nothing" through "Nothing" by the opposition of void through void necessitated by "All" alone.

"Definitions" are gods.

[Skepdick]

Genesis 1:1... It's easy to confuse creation with creationism.

[Eodnhoj7]

Genesis 1:1... It's easy to confuse creation with creationism.

All creation, as "to create", is an observation of a dynamic state where the creator acts as a medium to that which creates. There is no creation nor act of creation which does not have a mediator in some respect.

[Skepdick]

All creation, as "to create", is an observation of a dynamic state where the creator acts as a medium to that which creates. There is no creation nor act of creation which does not have a mediator in some respect.

Sure. Your medium in the above paragraph is language.

[Eodnhoj7]

All creation, as "to create", is an observation of a dynamic state where the creator acts as a medium to that which creates. There is no creation nor act of creation which does not have a mediator in some respect.

Sure. Your medium in the above paragraph is language.

And language is mediated through the point of awareness of the observer. All existence acts as a medium to all existence in some degree or another. All being is an inherent middle to some other being.

[Skepdick]

And language is mediated through the point of awareness of the observer. All existence acts as a medium to all existence in some degree or another. All being is an inherent middle to some other being.

It's all being.
It's all existence.

Different words - same meaning.

[Eodnhoj7]

And language is mediated through the point of awareness of the observer. All existence acts as a medium to all existence in some degree or another. All being is an inherent middle to some other being.

It's all being.
It's all existence.

Different words - same meaning.

All being is subject to equivocation then.

[Skepdick]

All being is subject to equivocation then.

No. It's an ontological axiom. A tautology.

[Eodnhoj7]

All being is subject to equivocation then.

No. It's an ontological axiom.

And that axiom is justified by its link to further axioms.

(Being ---> .... ---> .... ---> Being) where continual equivocation to further contexts results in the original context.

[Impenitent]

zildjian is better

-Imp