Completion Self-Contrasts

[Eodnhoj7]

Completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle. However because completion is relative one does not see all the other angles therefore making completion dually incomplete; it exists in contrast to itself thus both exists and does not exist at the same time.

[trokanmariel]

Completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle. However because completion is relative one does not see all the other angles therefore making completion dually incomplete; it exists in contrast to itself thus both exists and does not exist at the same time.

The mercy of the assertion, lies in the original premise, that "completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle"; is it actually a state of proven, that this is true?

It would appear, that the veracity of the assertion lies in the affirmed existence of 1D and 2D

[Eodnhoj7]

Completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle. However because completion is relative one does not see all the other angles therefore making completion dually incomplete; it exists in contrast to itself thus both exists and does not exist at the same time.

The mercy of the assertion, lies in the original premise, that "completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle"; is it actually a state of proven, that this is true?

It would appear, that the veracity of the assertion lies in the affirmed existence of 1D and 2D

1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

[trokanmariel]

Completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle. However because completion is relative one does not see all the other angles therefore making completion dually incomplete; it exists in contrast to itself thus both exists and does not exist at the same time.

The mercy of the assertion, lies in the original premise, that "completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle"; is it actually a state of proven, that this is true?

It would appear, that the veracity of the assertion lies in the affirmed existence of 1D and 2D

1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

The part that grabs me, is the 3rd point, about a totality of said specific part being a part as a whole. Could you elaborate on it?

[Eodnhoj7]

The mercy of the assertion, lies in the original premise, that "completion is relative given one can observe everything one can observe from a single angle"; is it actually a state of proven, that this is true?

It would appear, that the veracity of the assertion lies in the affirmed existence of 1D and 2D

1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

The part that grabs me, is the 3rd point, about a totality of said specific part being a part as a whole. Could you elaborate on it?

The part is whole as a part as the part is a part; a part is the totality of being within a given context with this totality necessitating wholeness.

[trokanmariel]

1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

The part that grabs me, is the 3rd point, about a totality of said specific part being a part as a whole. Could you elaborate on it?

The part is whole as a part as the part is a part; a part is the totality of being within a given context with this totality necessitating wholeness.

the part "whole as a part" I interpret as means being systems, with the term system denoting complexity as the singularity.

[Eodnhoj7]

The part that grabs me, is the 3rd point, about a totality of said specific part being a part as a whole. Could you elaborate on it?

The part is whole as a part as the part is a part; a part is the totality of being within a given context with this totality necessitating wholeness.

the part "whole as a part" I interpret as means being systems, with the term system denoting complexity as the singularity.

Observing a part is observing the totality of what can be observed from a specific angle; this angle as a totality is a whole.