I
To prove a thing in itself is to make is subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation. Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation. This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is a necessary part of this change.
The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing. The inability to observe all phenomena in its totality necessitates the thing in itself as the point of change from one observation to another. In observing a thing in itself the thing in itself changes from a thing in itself to not a thing in itself. A thing in itself is the event change from one observation into another.
We know a thing in itself, which is independent of observation, exists given the change in observation. First a thing is unobserved then it is observed. This is the change in observation. Change occurs through the thing in itself.
The distinction between appearance and a thing in itself is negated where all appearances are things in themselves given they exist through impressionable forms. An appearance is an act of distinction where one phenomenon stands out in contrast to another, in this case being stands out in contrast to Nothingness or being stands out in contrast to further being.
This distinction necessitates the appearance, as that of contrast, as a thing in itself given it exists in itself under a self-referential loop where being self-references in contrast to Nothingness as only being exists. This self referentiality is further reflected where being stands in contrast to further being given that which is distinct acts as the beginning and end point of the phenomenon it exists in contrast too given one phenomenon is observed through another. An example of this would be the bird existing as the bird in contrast to the tree it sits in. This contrast of the bird to the tree necessitates the bird as the beginning and end point of the observation of the tree.
This self referentiality, as a loop, sets the premise for being in itself as grounded in meta-form given the prerequisite form of a loop is necessary for a form to be observed. One form, that of the loop, is necessary for the prerequisite form of the being that is observed and this occurs through self-referentiality. This loop is in self referentiality and is necessary for form being observed given it results in the repetition of the phenomena and from this repetition a symmetry as one phenomenon equates to another, in this case the individuality of the phenomenon as it repeats across time and space. The self-hood, or individuality of the phenomenon, is that which repeats and this repetition necessitates the same beginning and end points as that of the phenomenon itself.
This underlying loop form is further reflected in that the very same phenomena, as appearance, are traceable forms given the beginning point of the phenomena are the same as the end point which is not just the phenomena itself, as both the beginning and end of a traceable loop form, but the phenomena themselves as both the beginning and end points to further phenomena. This form as a loop in itself, and the looping between forms, necessitates a self-referentially where an appearance is a thing in itself considering it is both composed of forms and these forms are derived from an underlying form.
Yet this distinction of a "thing in itself" reflects that the phenomenon is a point of change to another phenomenon due to its contrasting nature. Given an appearance only exists through contrast, the nature of the “thing in itself” is one of fundamental emptiness given no one phenomenon exists on its own. To point out a distinction is to point out the change of one phenomenon to another much in the same manner where a man of distinction is one who changes from what is considered normal thus offering a different paradigm of behavior.
Dually this distinction necessitates an inherent dualism within the phenomenon, due to the nature of contrast, where one phenomenon must stand out relative to another thus necessitating not only a multitude of phenomena, with the multitude beginning with two phenomena at minimum, but being standing out against Nothingness. This contrast mandates an emergence of phenomena as that which projects from a previously formless state. This projection from a previously formless state in turn projects back into and is received by that which is formless thus necessitating an act of impression of forms which occurs through a loop. Formlessness results in form, the form imprints itself upon formlessness thus resulting in further form. This form is empty in and of itself as its source is empty. The inherent emptiness of one form in itself is the means in which it is impressed by another form thus resulting in further forms.
These impressionable forms are that which are imprinted. This imprinting is grounded in the assumption of the form as the receiving of form. The reception of form is the act of taking a previously formless state and inverting it into one of form. The form repeats itself through nothingness thus necessitating a recursion where the form encapsulates nothing leaving only being as existing. The repetition of being is the encapsulation of what is formless through form. An example of this would be a cookie cutter as being composed of form at its outer edges but its inner state being one of formlessness. The emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for its ability to project a form onto a further blank state, that of the dough, where one formless state is impressed upon by a form thus resulting in a further form. Dually this emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for the traceable outline of the cookie cutter itself to take shape fundamentally through acting as a loop.
In impressing a form onto a blank state, one can say a void, comes the projection of that said form through the nothingness where the act of imprinting of said form is the repetition of projection of said form. An example of this would be a rock imprinting sand. The sand as imprinted by the rock leaves an impression as the indent with this indent being a projection of the form of the rock through the sand thus leaving not only the rock as a form but this form of the rock as repeated through the sand.
One form repeats through another form, as an isomorphic impression, given any state of impression is that of a projection of one form repeating itself through further projections which are received through the intrinsic emptiness of the phenomenon upon which they are projected. All appearances as fundamentally empty necessitate each appearance as a “thing in itself” given it is distinct. This distinction is the point of change from one being into another as a repetition of that said being into a newer state. To say a phenomenon is individual or unique is to say it is a point of change thus empty in itself. Individuality is emptiness.
The intrinsic emptiness of the individual phenomenon necessitates individuality as distinction and this distinction being one of a singularity where one phenomenon points to another under a self-referential loop where it contains that which it points toward. To point out an individual phenomenon is to point out where it changes from one phenomenon into another thus leaving individuality as paradoxical considering it is pointing to its own emptiness by pointing to another phenomenon as an extension of itself.
The phenomenon which is pointed towards manifests itself as part of the identity of that which points towards it through the contrast necessary for the distinction to occur. Contrast of one phenomenon to another manifests itself in its totality as a new phenomenon where that which contrasts exists as part of that which it is contrasted against. Thus independence is a point of change therefore necessitating dependence on another phenomenon. This dependence upon another phenomenon necessitates the phenomenon as referencing itself through another phenomenon.
This self-referential loop is the individuality of one set of phenomena as pointing to itself through the emptiness of each of its individual parts which compose it. This is considering that which composes the phenomenon, as individual parts, exist as points of change referencing another part through which it relates as a whole. The individuality of a phenomenon is the summation of parts pointing to each other thus resulting in a self-referential loop, yet this loop, as with all loops, is empty.
Under these terms the totality of being does not exist as an independent entity given its existence through grades necessitates it as dependent upon fractals/fractions of itself. Being is dependent upon other versions of itself in order to exist, with these other versions being variations. In these respects, being is not independent. In a dual sense it is independent, in a separate respect, given each of these variations contain at its roots a degree of change from the original form. An example of this would be the bird and the tree, both are individual phenomena yet the form of “limbs” repeats through both; however each of these forms, the “limbs” that is, occur independently as variations of the original form of the limb as “that which extends from a phenomenon”. The change of one phenomenon to another contains the further change of one phenomenon to another much in the same manner an individual part contains further individual parts.
The totality of being, as both composed of one and many parts, exists as dependent upon itself through self referencing fractals while dually being independent of itself due to the variation of these fractals. These fractals, at their core, are loops within loops where one loop repeats itself through a newer variation with this newer variation being independent of the original due to its changing qualities. The One is both dependent and independent of itself through a self referentiality and can be likened to a series of rings within rings where each ring is dependent upon the ring form yet dually is independent of it considering its variation from the original state in its qualities.
This self-referentiality is a loop and as a loop is fundamentally empty in itself except through further loops which are fundamentally empty in themselves as well. This emptiness of the loop of repetition points itself towards the phenomenon of variation which occurs under each act of repetition much in the same manner 1 as repeating itself through 2 observes 1 as repeated yet this repetition still results in the variation under the number 2. This repetition of the act of variation, or rather the repetition of change, necessitates variation, as a phenomenon in itself, as empty in itself thus pointing back to self-referentiality as a phenomenon in itself. The one self-references itself through empty loops which contain further empty loops and this self-referentiality points towards variation with variation pointing back to self-referentiality. Self-referentiality, as repetition, exists in contrast to variation, as isomorphism. This isomorphism is variation.
Considering the totality of being contains all phenomena, language, labels and names are part of the totality of being as phenomena which exist as part of the universe thus are things in themselves. As things in themselves they exist as points of change from one phenomenon to another. An example of this would be a simple symbol as pointing to one or more phenomenon. Under these terms both the concept of “The One” and the concept of “The Many” both exist and are therefore descriptions of the totality of being where being is defining itself through self-referential tautologies through the nature of the concept.
It is this dualistic and paradoxical notion of the totality of being existing as both one and many forms which is grounded in pure assumption alone given these concepts are strictly accepted “as is” for what they are as concepts. Concepts exist as concepts thus are real as concepts therefore necessitating there acceptance as both a part of existence and as existence itself. It is within this nature of acceptance of both “The One” and “The Many”, as distinct phenomena, which points directly to the nature of acceptance itself, through assumption, as being a key pivotal point within the acquisition and maintenance of all knowledge.
All experience is grounded in the assumption of forms, where a form is imprinted within the emptiness of the psyche. This emptiness is the absence of form which expands across both the consciousness, along with the sub consciousness by default, and the vastness of being. Void is the common median between that which is sensed abstractly and that which is sensed empirically. Void is synonymous to the formlessness of a phenomenon. This formlessness is the means of change from one phenomenon into another.
An example of this can be seen in the observation of a bird in a tree. The bird exists as distinctly within the tree as a contrast against the tree. In observing the bird, one is observing the tree it is in by default. The bird, through its distinction, acts as a means of change from the set of relations which form the bird (wings, beak, etc.) into the set of relations which form the tree (branches, leaves, etc.). This inversion from one form to another is in itself an absence of form given the form of the bird loses itself into that of the tree and the tree loses its form into that of the bird.
One form inverts to another form through a formlessness, thus the formlessness of one phenomenon acts as the means of change into another through an emergence. This emergence is the appearance of one phenomenon amidst many.
With the progressive change of one phenomenon to another comes a resulting absence of form in the previous phenomenon. A change occurs where the once distinct phenomenon dissolves into another distinct phenomena, thus with the clarity of one phenomenon comes the ambiguity of another. Applying this to abstract shapes results in the same dualism of ambiguity and clarity. In observing a square as a whole each line morphs into a singular shape while looking at each line individually results in the square morphing into a line. Formlessness thus as a means of change from one phenomenon to another. It can be observed both empirically and abstractly, this is considering one form always progresses to another form. Change is the common medium amidst phenomena and as repetitive, change through change, results in a loop.
Each form of reality, empirical and abstract, is a loop and as a loop maintains an intrinsic emptiness of form contained within it. This inherent emptiness allows for change of one phenomenon to another to occur. All forms manifest this nature as a loop through multiple degrees:
1. It is a loop in the respect one phenomenon manifests through repetition across time and space. This repetition is the cycling of a phenomenon. This repetition of the phenomenon, as a cycling, is the containment of an intrinsic void through the movement across a void. This movement is one phenomenon existing in multiple states as a continuum. For example the movement of a particle from position A to position B is the containment of void where each repeated particle, as a new position, contains void between them. Void is contained through the same phenomenon existing in multiple states.
2. It is also a loop as its given outline always resorts to a loop. This is considering the tracing of any one form always results in the end as the same place as the beginning. For example the tracing of the shape of a man results in a loop considering the beginning trace at the head results in the trace ending in the same position it began. The overall form of a man is that of a loop, however this applies to any empirical form.
3. Finally it is always a loop given its identity of A=A, logically, is a loop. The assertion has the same beginning as it does the end. The assertion, of A=A, is defined further through a series of assertions it contains as part of its definition such as B=B, C=C, etc., thus one loop contains many. Logical statements necessitate one assertion as existing through many, thus while one loop of A=A represents one degree of looping, the repetition of one assertion through many assertions is another degree of loop reflective of point 1.
4. Many assumable phenomena are loops: (insert list) These phenomenon reflect specifically the circle which manifest across a variety of phenomenon. These phenomenon, as loops, approximated one form superimposed across many phenomena. This one form is the circle as the summation of all loops through the totality of loops.
As assumed, form is imprinted upon the psyche and is repeated. This constitutes the "I". The "I", as composed of patterns, is a series of repeated patterns with each pattern as a loop with the repetition being a process of looping itself. This form, as existing through a loop as a loop, is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we perceive further phenomena.
All phenomena, as loops, act as filters to how we assume further patterns. Our psyche assumes patterns based upon priory assumed patterns. These prior patterns, as empty considering they are loops, assume further patterns base upon what aligns with one pattern and which does not. Alignment is the repetition of a single form across a myriad of forms thus necessitating an underlying common base. This common base, where one form exists in multiple states, in itself is a loop.
The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns. For example, the pattern of "mammal" contains similar forms along a series of organisms that align across a continuum of said organisms. These similarities may be lungs, sexual reproduction, etc. This similarities of forms is an alignment of forms across a series of phenomenon.
In another example the pattern of a horse contains many elements of that which constitutes a mammal thus in assuming a horse the pattern of "mammal" aligns with it. The absence of similarities is an absence of alignment. The pattern of "mammal" does not align completely with that of the "insect" yet similarities are observed under the pattern of "organism".
What determines the alignment of forms is the similarities and differences that compose the forms as further sub forms. Forms align through further forms which compose it thus one or a series of forms repeat across a series of phenomenon as superimposed. Each form is a set of loops within loops with certain loops aligning or not aligning with the form being observed.
This applies abstractly, as well, within the realm of logic. The circular nature of A=A contains within its definition a series of further assertions such as B=B, C=C, etc. with each assertion being a variation of the original assertion. Another example of this can be the recursion of 1 as a series of numbers under 2, 3, 4, etc. Each assertion aligns to a further assertion based upon its similarities and differences, these similarities are grounded in the original assumption manifesting itself under a new form. A third example of this may be that of a dog and cat where one organism progressively diverges from another in qualities yet shares many of these qualities such as a head, tail, legs, etc. The common qualities of a group of organism occurs repeatedly through its variations.
It is this matching of forms, as loops, which necessitate all experience as a process of measurement through assumption. All assumption is a process of experience, this experience is a process of imprinting. This imprinting is the reception of loops and an ingraining of these patterns into the psyche.
Experience is the subjective nature to how we assume patterns where a series of patterns is imprinted within the "I" which is composed of a series of priory existing patterns. The "I" is a series of loops which operate through a form of looping between the subject and object. A form is presented. It is assumed and further projected as another pattern and then reassumed. One loop is looped through many loops. Our ability to assume is what defines the self at any given moment. We are what we assume and the angle of assumption, as the angle of observation, necessitates subjectivity as being fundamentally bias.
All philosophy, and rational endeavors by default, are inherently bias. This bias is rooted in the inherent subjective angles an assertion is subject to. This bias necessitates an absence of progression past an inherent viewpoint except through the points of view already established as the bias itself. It is the progression of an already established angle of observation with this progression maintaining the original assertion through its variation into newer and newer assertions. Even supposedly new "viewpoints" are mere variations of underlying viewpoints already established but underdeveloped. The act of testing itself is subject to this bias.
All tests are extensions of the observer where the test is the means of approximating a natural environment by observing a specific list of variables which reflect the environment being tested. The test is a means of mimicking variables found in nature where the test itself cannot observe all variables within the natural environment given the variables observed are a projection of the tester's angle of awareness. The test is a projection of the observer and as such necessitates a subjective state of awareness.
This subjective state necessitates that all objective truth, truth which is agreed upon where multiple subjective states align, is grounded in the aforementioned subjectivity where what we deem as truth is fundamentally an angle of awareness, in this case group awareness. This angle of awareness necessitates that given any set of phenomena only a specific number of variables are observed and the test itself does not address all potential variables.
This nature of testing thus necessitates what is being observed is a series of relationships determined by a series of subjectively observed parameters. These parameters are what is being measured and not the natural environment itself. All acts of testing are an angle of observation and this angle of observation reflects into the nature of the proof which follows from testing.
The nature of proof is also subject to the angle of awareness of the observer given it must connect with the observer. Proof is a means of defining a specific set of relations given. Proof is evidence and evidence is a body of facts. This body of facts necessitates a group of facts existing as connected through a set. In asking for proof one asks for the observation of connections between one phenomenon and another. The phenomenon of “connectivity” exists as beyond proof as a distinct phenomenon in itself which allows for proof to exist but as existing beyond proof as it is not limited to proof. This connection results in a form, or rather the shape through which phenomena exist. The shape is the boundaries, or rather limits, through which something exists. Proof is the application of limits thus what exists beyond limits, ie a point, is beyond proof. Simultaneously proof as definition through the connection of boundaries, or limits, necessitates that proof is a subset to form and form exists as beyond proof much in the same manner the phenomenon of connectivity exists as beyond proof.
Proof, given it is defined through connection, is grounded in its ability to connect to the observer(s) thus is inherently bias. Where an absence of form occurs comes an absence of proof given an absence of connection occurs considering connection occurs between observer and the phenomenon, the observer and another observer or one phenomenon and another phenomenon. Proof is strictly definition and there is no proof for defining what proof is without going in a circle. Following in the same manner of the “testing of tests”, there is always some proof necessary for another proof to be proven but this proof exists as beyond proven, it is strictly assumed. Thus, a paradox in proof occurs and to ask for proof is to ask for a contradiction in one respect, given its necessary circularity, in another respect it is a contradiction as one is asking for the distinction of one event amidst many thus further necessitating some form of opposition through contrasting phenomenon or assertions.
It it this angle of observation that maintains itself as fundamentally the root of all philosophical inquiries under the dialect itself. Two, or more, viewpoints converge for a period of time only to progressively diverge and re-converge over the topics being discussed. A discussion of politics, for example, shows two distinct viewpoints of the subject discussed. This discussion reflects agreements over some topics through a converging of assertions through agreement. When the subjects cease to agree a divergence of the topic occurs. Agreement of some points results in the convergence of the dualistic views, disagreement results in the divergence.
But what is common is that each viewpoint begins with an assumed, thus empty, beginning assertion. Philosophy, and all rational endeavors, thus becomes a synthetic cycling between assertions through an empty assertion. The convergence and divergence of viewpoints results from the contradictory nature of said assertions. This contradiction is grounded in the division of said assertions through an intrinsic emptiness resulting from said assertions. This emptiness is the formless center which acts as the divide. The contradiction is opposition, the opposition is the distinction, the distinction is contrast and the contrast is definition.
The opposition occurs through two symmetrically opposing assertions which are divided through a formless center point in which these topics revolve around. For example, to have the assertion “up” presented, and its opposite of “down” as presented necessitate both “up” and “down” divided around an absence of a formed term. This opposition is distinction where one phenomenon is presented as an individual entity which is defined by what it is not, that being the antithetical assertion.
This individuality is the distinction where one phenomenon, or assertion, is defined by its emergence from another phenomenon, or assertion. This emergence is the point in which one phenomenon changes into another. This distinction, through emergence, is contrast with the contrast being two seemingly symmetrical phenomenon being separated by an absence of form between them. The absence of form necessitates one phenomenon, or assertion, pointing to another in order to maintain a form through an interconnectedness. This act of pointing, through contrast, is definition with this pointing of one phenomenon to another, or assertion to another, resulting in a looping form. This loop, as the foundation of definition, necessitates an emergence of form from a formless center in which the phenomenon and assertions revolve around.
Thus, the convergence and divergence of viewpoints, or rather self-evident truths as axioms, paradoxically lends itself to a viewpoint that supersedes the actions of philosophy as a whole thus summating them under a single viewpoint. In simpler terms the cycling of viewpoints, between a thesis and antithesis, is in itself a viewpoint of viewpoints. This singular viewpoint, as the summation of a series of viewpoints, creates a paradox as no antithetical element to it can be presented other than a simple "no it is not true". An anti-perspectivist stance can be promoted as a counter to this point, yet this in itself is a perspective, thus a contradiction occurs. This contradiction is nothing other than a distinction of one point of view relative to another through a contrast.
Philosophy, and all rational endeavors, are thus contradictory by their very nature, with the root of all contradictions occurring through the dualistic nature of dialogue itself. This dialogue reflects into the totality of “being” given the opposing nature of many phenomena results in said contradiction where contradiction acts as a point of distinction which allows that which is observed in fact to be observable. In shorter and simpler terms contradiction is observation as observation is grounded in the assumption of some form with the assumption of form being an assumption of definition. This form exists through further form thus to observe form is to observe a multiplicity. Multiplicity is opposition as contradiction.
Contradiction is thus the localization of one phenomenon through the observance of many opposing phenomenon. In another respect any localization of a phenomena is in itself a contradiction given any localization of a whole, as a series of parts, necessitates a series of parts beyond it necessary to define the part itself. This promotion of a localized phenomenon is thetical while the absence of all observable variables which exist beyond it is antithetical given they are unknowns thus without form. In the dualism resulting from the localization of a phenomenon comes a dualism of form and formlessness.
Third, to localize a phenomenon is to create an antithetical state in the respect all thetical assertions have their complete opposite. This complete opposite is the gradation of the original phenomenom, or assertion, and is not limited to a symmetrical opposite in the strictest sense of the wording. For example the assertion of one animal, out of many, as "cat" is to make an antithetical assertion of "non-cat" as grades of the cat. This grade, as a modality which exists as an extension of the cat that describes it, can be something such as "wild" or "domesticated". It may also represent a symmetrical opposite, such as "dog", which has various symmetrical qualities (tail, head, legs, etc.) that diverge through a gradation as existing under a different form. This third aspect of localization, which exists simultaneously to the antithetical elements and unobservable variables it manifests, is one of gradation where one thing reduces itself to multiple things.
To make the assertion of x is to manifest the assertion of -x where -x is the means through which x exists through a further description by assertions which are -x. To localize any given assertion is to manifest a chain of assertions, not as the original assertion itself, necessary to describe it. Yet even though these assertions describe the phenomenon they are not the phenomenon itself. Thus with any thetical assertion comes an inherent antithetical assertion. This antithetical assertion is strictly a quality which is not the aforementioned quality presented. For every "x" a "-x" occurs with -x being a grade of x presented. The thetical whole is described through the antithetical parts.
Philosophy becomes less a solution of contradictions as it becomes more of a promotion of contradiction for contradictions sake given these contradictions are necessary for any identity property to occur. The prime axiom of philosophy itself is contradiction through dialectic where solutions are less the anticipated course of philosophy but rather the maintenance of already held positions in the face of an antithetical state that is used to defined and redefined what is already present. The maintenance of an already held position is in fact the solution, this maintenance occurs through contradiction.
The prime purpose of philosophy, and all rational endeavors, reflects a form of self-discovery, where the subjective point of view is reinforced against everything it is not. Philosophy thus takes the role of exploring a respective void where the already established point of view is tested and retested, in the face of continual obliteration, to reveal what goes on underneath. The argument or rational endeavor is a cycling of assertions around an intrinsic emptiness given all beginning viewpoints are assertions. These assertions, as a starting point, are all empty except for the loop of reasoning which occurs around them. Dialectic is thus rooted in a Nothingness, that all discourse hovers around, leading philosophy to act as a dynamic state of revealing the interior nuances of rational loops within an already established bias. It is the breakdown of rational loops into further rational loops.
Thus "the problem" is maintained as self-evident because what is not self-evident is what lies beneath "the problem". All assertions thus reflect a nature of being problematic as they are the means of dividing said assertion into further assertions in an effort to promote change. This change is a process of definition and redefinition where what is without definition becomes a part of a greater whole as a formless generalized state of affair that is strictly assumed "as is".
In simpler terms that which is undefined is the generalized state itself given the generalized state represents a formless singularity. For example in finding an underlying particle, which exists through multiple particles, this underlying particle is assumed as the general original point from which all particles begin. So, while the underlying particle may represent the apex from which all particles begin, this beginning point acts as an assumed starting point and is taken strictly “as is”. It is formless as the point 0 through which knowledge occurs and much like point 0 takes on a nature of form through its self-negation. This can be observed under the example of a singular point being without form and existing as a boundless plane. When this boundless plane is divided through itself, in other words self-negated, the form of a line or circle appears under the guise of multiple points. The singularity thus represents a formlessness from which form is ascertained and this multiplicity is the individuation of one singularity into another resulting in said form.
To point out a problem is to point out a distinction made evident through contradiction under a multiplicity of contrasting, thus opposing, terms.
To make an assertion of "x" is to promote itself as a problem given what lies underneath is not evident. Each assertion, as a problem, is thus a means of change from one assertion into another considering the problem, as the assertion, is evident for its “as-isness”. The problem exists for what it is just as an assertion exists for what it is, thus necessitating a common bond between the problem itself and the assertion.
Yet what underlies the assertion, as the problem it is, is not evident thus leading to a form of progress from one assertion to another in an effort to bring form out of formlessness or rather a sense of order out of nothing. This form out of formlessness is self referentiality itself where multiple assertions continually reference each other in a loop. This self referential loop is a contrast where one assertion points to another assertion that is not that assertion thus necessitating a form of opposition between assertions where this opposition leads to a bond between assertions in the respect they define the other assertion by what it is not. Opposition is necessary for definition and this opposition occurs through the act of change. Again this change is less of a change from one bias to another but the promotion of change within the bias itself.
The change from one bias to a more complex bias is the reflection of "being" itself as a whole phenomenon, with "being" being that which exists through the perspective of the observer, in the face of a complete voiding of that very same "being". One state of being changes to another state in the face of its negation. This nature reflects within the nature of the assertion and reflects within the nature of being.
It is this fundamental bias which lies in observation which necessitates “all that is” lies within the center point of the observer. Even unknown unknowns are observed as an antithetical negative limit which describes what is known by what is not known, however this is known unknown thus lies within the nature of perspective therefore is subject to the observer.
Philosophy thus takes a role as a self-reflective property through the surgical analysis presented through the voiding of being. This voiding of being is the voiding of the perspective itself. What voids an assertion is that which expands that very same assertion into a newer state of being thus expanding the perspective through the negation of that very same perspective. For example to void a line by adding a 0d point results in the manifestation of further lines as variations of the original. One line is defined through its progressive variation to many with this progressive variation into many being the manifestation of fractal states as grades of the original state. This occurs through voiding.
Dialectic, or rather all philosophical and rational endeavors, thus takes the form of bias renewal with this bias renewal further necessitating that perspectives themselves, or one could say the core assertion behind those perspectives, are grounded in a dynamic change that leaves them as fundamentally formless at their root point. Continual progressive change of the origin leaves the origin as empty in and of itself considering a continual progression past the source is a negation of the original source for a newer state. This origin, as formless through its continual progression, thus necessitates it as a point of change. Originality is change with this change being “newness” therefore originality is that which is new as the distinct point from which one phenomenon changes into another. Origins, as the root of originality, is the beginning point of a phenomenon
This emptiness as formlessness is the assumptive capacity of the observer him or herself where observation is the assumption of one phenomenon and its inversion to another. This occurs much in the same manner a lump of clay is assumed and inverted into a statue. The point of observation is fundamentally formless. This formlessness, much like a 0d point on a line, inverts one form into another form, much in the same manner a point inverts one line into many. Formlessness is the means of change as potential form.
The dialectic thus takes the role of revealing what lies underneath the subconscious and giving it conscious form. It does this through a continual regress of one term into another. It may even be taken a step further and said that the dialectic takes the role of revealing where the intended assertion is fundamentally empty of form and takes on a spontaneous nature given there is no formal method for determining the divergence of assumptions.
Assumptions just diverge into new assumptions. This spontaneous nature, where the bias assertion is broken down to its core root, thus subjects the bias as a product of chance with this chance being the spontaneity of the order resulting from the breakdown of said assertion. An example of this can be in the breakdown of a house where a sledgehammer is swung, but due to the absence in perceiving all variables, the cracks observed in the wall and is subsequent falling apart of the wall result in a random pattern. Randomness is the absence of seeing all actual and potential variables. The assertion is unpredictable due to the unobserved actual and potential variables which form it. This randomness occurs within the divergence of assertions. Thus, within the course of any heavy analysis, as divergent, an element of randomness is present. There is no formal methodology for predicting all, not some, of what will occur through the act of analysis.
Dually the dialectic's means go far beyond finding and renewing the root of a bias proposition and goes well into the nature of its order as subject to a determinism in which a viewpoint occurs because it is inevitable to occur. In simpler terms the assertion is a complex structure of assertions composed of other assertions as a deterministic chain. The dialect is dually, or rather paradoxically, the process of determinism where one assertion results in another as both fractions and fractals of the original.
This determinism observes that an assertion occurs precisely because it is inevitable through a cause and effect chain where something such as 1 results in 2 precisely because 1 is repeating itself. 1 is a cause and 2 is an effect. Dividing an orange through the middle inevitably results in two halves. One thing leads to another as a variation of itself, where all effect is the approximation of a cause. 2 is an approximation of 1 given that 1 is expressed in multiples through 2. The effect is an approximation of the source where the source is approximated through its voiding into a proxy source. This nature of proxy source is relegated to its fundamental nature of being in turn a cause for some of phenomenon. This can be seen as 2 being the cause for 4 or the offspring of one set of parents in turn resulting in further offspring. The source results in effect as another source. Another example is the evolution of single celled organisms into multicellular organism which result in further multicellular organism.. These multicellular organisms exist as complex states of the single celled organism where the singular cause, the single cell, exists as approximated under the effect as a multiple celled organism. The multiple celled organism is grounded in a self referentiality of single cells into a newer form. The multicellular organism in turn results into a new multicellular organism as both an approximation of the original and the singular celled organism through which is manifests.
On one hand the assertions diverge into new assertions randomly, and in another respect the assertions do so through a determinism. Determinism and randomness are defined through a contrast with each other. This may seem like a contradiction at first, and in some respects it it, but it is not in its totality given both occur determinism and randomness exist at the same time in different respects through the very same contrast which roots them in a contradictory state.
For example the assertion of "red" may progress to another grade of red as statistically inevitable, given one assertion progresses to a variation of the original premise. In a second respect the assertion results in a non-red color, mixed with the original, which is fundamentally random given there is no actual formalism for determining how the assertion progresses in its variation given not all variables are observed. The passing on of genes is another example of this where a red hair gene may be passed along to the offspring but which and if the offspring manifests the red hair is subject to chance.
This voiding of assertion, where one assertion deterministically results in a variation of the assertion yet this variation contains unpredictability as randomness, acts as the form of division which reforms the basic assertion by breaking it down to its base roots and rebuilding it back into a whole.
For every assertion that is broken down, a series of assertions come in its place thus relegating philosophy to a cycling and recycling of assertions. Where the original assertion exists as both an interior loop, through self-referentiality, and an exterior loop, in the respect assertions cycle between each other, the looping form of the assertions manifests dually through the functions of the loop. The loop as intrinsically empty is thus both a form and a function of change. Form does not follow function and function does not follow form but rather form and function are both one and the same thing and simultaneously follow each other. The nature of perspective is thus grounded in a cyclicality with this cyclicality grounded in form.
The original bias state is thus reamplified through an expanded newer and newer form until the sheer magnitude of assertions, stemming from the original assertion, shatters the original assertion and a point zero in knowledge occurs where the shear multiplicity of phenomena isomorphically reflects a singular amorphous state. An example of this would be a singular point. As the point divides into new points a form takes shape. This shape, as composed of points, divides into further points until an infinite number of points results thus reflecting a single point again. (Insert pic).
The grounding of all assertions, as beginning points to further assertions, is founded in the assertion itself. The assertion has no formal system in determining its introduction other than the assertion by the observer. The assertion is subject to the angle of the observer. This angle of the observer is the formalism itself. It is what determines which phenomena act as an assertion 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.
Assertions 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. For example one may observe the assertions of a horse and a landscape converge to form an image of a landscape with a horse on it. Both the horse and landscape are continuums: the horse is a series of parts, such as legs, head, etc. while the landscape is a series of parts, such as hills, grass, etc. What is not observed is what lies beyond this convergence of continuums. What is beyond the horse and the landscape is not observed, just the horse and landscape are observed. Thus where continuums, as a series of phenomenon which results in a whole, merge is a point in which phenomena are not observed beyond them.
This can be reflected under the geometric picture of lines, as forms, meeting at a point zero. The lines represent the respective forms being observed, the point zero reflects the empty assumptive capacity through which the lines are viewed given the lines are observed from points and points alone. All points of awareness begin and end with points. The point is the origin of all observations of forms with the line or the circle being the most primitive examples of this.
Perspective, in its empty assumptive capacity, begins with a non-observable state given one cannot view that they are viewing some phenomena without some manner of viewing beyond what is being viewed existing as unobservable. A point of view always lies behind a point of view and much like the point this is empty. In observing a singular thought one realizes that which is behind the thought is fundamentally empty, a gap occurs between one thought an another with the gap lying behind the thought. A recursion of a formlessness occurs behind and through all means of observation. Dually this empty assumptive capacity is where that which is being viewed ends, in other words in viewing a phenomenon the phenomenon ends where it cannot be viewed. Assumption, as a void state within the perspective, is both the beginning and end point thus resulting in a deeper degree of circularity through which perspective occurs.
It is this beginning and end point of the assertion as having a common bond of void which necessitates all assertions, as subject to the angle of the observer, are thus grounded in continuums of a formlessness with this continuum of formlessness paradoxically resulting in a form. A line as composed of a continuum of points is an example of this.
These continuums are a relation of parts working together to form a loop of interconnected pieces that progress through time. This is considering a formlessness is encapsulated by a form. In looking at a blank piece of paper the blankness is embodied by the edges of the paper.
This continuum of formless states necessitates a continuum of forms. These continuums on one hand they may be abstract forms such as the successor function where 1 progresses through one string as 2, 3, 4, etc. on a number line with 0 dividing each line. Or it may be presented empirically where a horse is a loop of parts referring to each other such as 4 legs, hair, head etc. with each part being intrinsically empty of itself. The numbers, such as 2,3,4, etc. are loops of 1 with 1 being a loop containing 0 much in the same manner a singular circle contains nothing. Dually the parts of the horse are all forms which are empty in themselves as upon continual analysis they are reduced to nothing. All loops are the continuum of qualities with each continuum being a loop composed of further loops.
Considering the assertion has no set formalisms in determining what acts as the assertion and what does not, the formalism of the assertion is always a continuum. This formalism is the continuity of the assertion from one state into another. However there is no formalism in determining which assertion one begins with other than the continuum itself.
An argument or observation may begin with any series of premises as part of the subject. In these respects all assertions, as subject to the point of the observer, are random in respect to the subjective beginning point of observation is not determinable, yet dually formalized as continuums. Both the perspective and the continuity of the perspective, as the continuum, is the formal manner in determining how or what an assertion is or becomes. This formalism necessitates the formalism as paradoxically nothing other than form. To present a formalism of reasoning is to say reasoning is subject to a form. This most basic form is that of a continuum which is self-referencing loop.
This continuum is the process of definition where a beginning assertion is manifested and progresses in definition through another assertion. Each beginning point is a part of the whole, thus there is no statement that is not self-contradictory given that each statement is a localization of a continuum thus representing a part of this said the whole. As representative of a part, each statement always requires some statement, unrepresented, beyond it. It is this absence of a complete representation that necessitates a contradiction in terms given that something is always provable by what is not provable. This occurs both for the original starting assertion as requiring some unproven assertion beyond it as well as a string of assertions as always requiring some unproven singular or string of assertions beyond it.
(A→B→C→(x)) with C being the final portion of the string and (x) being the unknown assertion beyond the string. The final variable of the string is always unproven. This occurs respectively for the singular assertion as well given (Q→ (x)). However if (A→ B→ C→ A)(x) the entire string is proven through itself as a loop. However another outside string beyond it, required for proof, is accepted "as is" and is unproven. This circular assertion requires another circular assertion beyond it in order to justify it.
Thus the assertion as self-referential is proven, however this self-referential assertion requires a self-referential statement beyond it thus is simultaneously unproven.
All assertions are both proven and unproven at the same time in different respects. Proof is dualistic and as dualistic is grounded in contradiction as a means of distinguishing itself as a proof. With the increase in accuracy and clarity in one respect comes a simultaneous decrease in accuracy and clarity in another. With the increase in words comes an increase in contradictions given form is defined by a seemingly opposing formlessness. However with the increase in words, as an increase in contradictions, comes a necessary further increase in words to clarify the contradictions with this in turn acting as another loop.
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 each other. "y" and "x" are both empty on their own terms thus progressed to "z". "y" and "x" exist as a loop through "z" which is in itself a loop. From here the loop of variables occurs through an inherent expansion of context due to the intrinsic emptiness which occurs as a means of change.
This emptiness is both interior to any given phenomena, thus assertion as well, and exterior through the progressive change which defines it. In simpler terms the phenomena/assertion is empty in itself and also empty in its progress from one phenomena/assertion to another. Emptiness is both interior and exterior of form. The phenomena and assertion can both be viewed as synonymous variations of each other given there natures are interchangeable.
This emptiness is grounded in the circularity of the phenomenon where "x is x" and "y is y". Each term is an empty loop, and as an empty loop is determined by what phenomenon they progress to. This progression is the process of definition where one word inverts to another symmetrical word allowing for the repetition of the original word. This same mode of functioning for "words" is the same form and function for the all "assertions" themselves. Each assertion is an empty loop either empirically, as a traceable outline through a proper shape (such as the outline of a man begins and ends with the same point), or within is abstract identity properties, given A=A. This circularity and regress can lend itself to being a problem unless we seek greater definition of the problem itself.
Loops and Void
Re: Loops and Void
II
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 and as an assertion it is distinct through its underlying nature of being a contradiction with this contradiction being the opposition of one assertion and another. Opposition is contrast, contrast is distinction thus contradiction is contrast therefore distinction.
Look at any dialogue ad you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?" Dialogue is subject to a process of definition and this nature of definition is the problem. The problem is the opposition of one phenomenon to another.
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. 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 "definition", such as "study", "fundamental", "knowledge", etc. in an effort to give clarity to it. This clarity is contrast of one term, assumption or phenomenon to another thus necessitating clarity as grounded in contradiction.
However the word "definition" is still an empty word thus necessitating an ever present problem. 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, and all rational endeavors, are 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 is about overcomplicating the simple and simplifying the complicated. In these respects, it is revolutionary, with the root of this being "revolution" where one observation revolves into a new observation. Philosophy is the cycling of perceptions. In this cycling of perceptions all modes of reasoning are not clear except assumed as clear, they are not vague except as assumed as vague. Even in defining "clarity" and "vagueness" results in the inevitable clarity and vagueness of said definitions. Their definitions are determined by the subjective value placement of terms used to determine them.
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. These hinge terms are extensions of the observer and the emptiness of the term allows for anyone to assign value placement as they want as long as a loop of reasoning appears around it. In certain respects this equates philosophy to antiquated polytheistic religions where everyone has their own personal god much in the same manner where everyone has their own definition of a phenomena their lives revolve around.
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 and as an assertion it is distinct through its underlying nature of being a contradiction with this contradiction being the opposition of one assertion and another. Opposition is contrast, contrast is distinction thus contradiction is contrast therefore distinction.
Look at any dialogue ad you are left with some variation of the question of: "How do you define...?" Dialogue is subject to a process of definition and this nature of definition is the problem. The problem is the opposition of one phenomenon to another.
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. 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 "definition", such as "study", "fundamental", "knowledge", etc. in an effort to give clarity to it. This clarity is contrast of one term, assumption or phenomenon to another thus necessitating clarity as grounded in contradiction.
However the word "definition" is still an empty word thus necessitating an ever present problem. 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, and all rational endeavors, are 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 is about overcomplicating the simple and simplifying the complicated. In these respects, it is revolutionary, with the root of this being "revolution" where one observation revolves into a new observation. Philosophy is the cycling of perceptions. In this cycling of perceptions all modes of reasoning are not clear except assumed as clear, they are not vague except as assumed as vague. Even in defining "clarity" and "vagueness" results in the inevitable clarity and vagueness of said definitions. Their definitions are determined by the subjective value placement of terms used to determine them.
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. These hinge terms are extensions of the observer and the emptiness of the term allows for anyone to assign value placement as they want as long as a loop of reasoning appears around it. In certain respects this equates philosophy to antiquated polytheistic religions where everyone has their own personal god much in the same manner where everyone has their own definition of a phenomena their lives revolve around.
Re: Loops and Void
III
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 acceptance is knowledge as repetition.
For example, in assuming the experience of "a bird in a tree", "the bird in the tree" is repeated in the thoughts of the observer as well as the objective empirical experience. First the experience is assumed and then it is repeated through memory and experience. While being repeated through the memory the experience itself it is repeated across a timeline where the experiences lasts for a successive duration of moments. The repetition allows the experience to take form within the observer as a thing in itself and as a thing in itself it exists as a point of change from one phenomenon to another. This point of change allows the phenomenon which is changing existing through its variation into further and further phenomena. It exists because it exists and this existence occurs because of its repetition.
Philosophy, and all reasoning by default, 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. All distinction, that which separates one phenomenon from another is born of this dichotomy. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a rule. Looking at any phenomenon we can observe a series of dualisms:
(insert list)
These converge as a third element in themselves.
This 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 thetical laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form through a synthesis.
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.
Philosophy, and all modes of reasoning, are 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 definition is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms where the dualism itself is responsible for the continuum of phenomenon given one phenomenon is divided into another along a progression.
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. The union of what is symmetrical results in not just a new medial phenomenon but necessitates all phenomena as synthetic breaking down into further phenomenon through a divergence.
Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseparable 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. Even in discussing dualisms we are reduced to further basic dualistic terms which allow for the definition of “dualism” through a mediation between extremes.
The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two. This alternation occurs around a center point that is absent of definition which the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being (deficiency in fullness of being) are opposites around void. Unity and multiplicity around nothingness is another example. 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 necessitates the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis into a synthetic state. This synthetic state is the recursion of key variables, within the thesis and antithesis, 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, this tautology can be represented, under the variables:
(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. An example of this would be "dog" progressing to "wild dog" where "wild" as descriptive of "dog" is in itself "not dog". While descriptive, and a part of "dog", "wild" is simultaneously "not dog" thus mandating with the progression of one assertion to another a negative assertion relative to the original is observed.
This negative assertion is some grade of existence which exists as distinct to said prior assertion thus mandating itself as an individual entity which is not limited to the original assertion in certain respects. While the “dog” may be “wild”, what “wild” is is not subject to dog and exists as a distinct entity in itself thus “not dog”.
It is also expressed under the quantities of:
(1→ (2↔-1))
With the progression, on a number line, of 1 to 2 comes a difference of 1 as -1. This considering as the line progresses to a new line a simultaneous negative number line occurs as the reverse progression back to its original form.
This occurs respectively 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" on a number line, as ((0→0)→1). This can be evidenced through a simple line between two points where the progression of a 0d point to a 0d point results in a qualifiable line and a quantifiable 1.
In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another inversive state of thesis to antithesis as a gradation of said forms.
The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into its opposite as form, with this form occuring under another set of opposing states as the gradation of that form. 0 inverts to 1 as nothing into being under ((0→ 0)→ 1) and ((• → •)→ A) respectively. 1 inverts to 2 resulting in -1 as being into non-being under ((1→ 1)→ (2↔-1)). Something such as a “dog“ inverts into a variation of the original “dog” as “not dog”, such as tail or legs under ((A→ A)→(B↔ -A)) respectively.
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 dichotomy and meta-dichotomy being a dichotomy as well.
The resulting thesis and antithesis results in the synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, which is grounded in a tautology of the thesis and antithesis under a new form. Again, using the example of bravery, bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of aggression and cowardice itself.
The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition, by nature, which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Using the example of "bravery" again, this assertion means nothing in itself except through the thetical quality of "aggression" and the antithetical quality of "cowardice".
Both thesis and antithesis revolve around an assertion which is empty in itself. Synthesis has a reverse element where the synthetic assertion as progressing from the thesis and antithesis has meaning, but if inverted in direction of progression it is absent of meaning as an empty assertion the thesis and antithesis revolves around.
The dualism between thesis and antithesis, while defining each other, are centered by an assertion which in itself has no meaning if one progresses away from the synthetic medial definition while has meaning if one progresses towards it. This is considering the assertion is empty in itself except as defined by another assertion. If progressing to a synthetic definition the meaning is derived from the convergence of terms as a tautology. If progressing away from a definition the absence of meaning is derived from the divergence of terms. The medial definition thus acts as having both form and formlessness much in the same manner figuratively, if not literally, as an empty loop. This form is the progression of opposites into another phenomenon where the opposites are empty in themselves, this formless is the progression away from the phenomenon into a dualism where the medial term is empty in itself.
The synthetic assertion acts as a means of change into thesis and antithesis. Assertions are thus complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself. One assertion is undefined through divergence as a process of divergence. Dually one assertion is defined through the convergence of assertions as a process of convergence. As a dynamic process it is 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, as dynamic it is formless and above a set of rules. In simpler terms the assertion as a means of change is the act of change itself. To form an assertion is to create change resulting in further changes as further assertions. There is no guideline for forming an assertion, it is just made.
Again using the example of "bravery", the manifestation of a dichotomy leaves "bravery" as undefined except existing as a medial phenomenon through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice" progressing in definition towards it. Without the thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition. To make the assertion of "bravery" is to create a series of further terms through a formless one, with each of these terms being formless except through further terms. All assertions are thus paradoxical as both that which has form and that which does not have form as the assertion both converges and diverges dependent upon the angle of observation. Continuity is grounded in emptiness, yet this continuity is form.
The application of a perceived 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 a "tautology of definition", as one definition defined through a variety of ways, is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one. This dynamic state is the act of change through emptiness itself. This static state is the containment of this change through form as the containment of emptiness through form. This inversion from one state into an opposing opposite yet symmetrical state is isomorphism. This inversion is change, with this change being embodied through form. For example the change of A into B is embodied under the third variable of C as the containment of these changes. Isomorphism is thus can act of change but this inversion of one phenomenon to another in itself is form. Isomorphism is therefore formless embodied within form much in the same manner a loop is a form which embodies that which is formless (its center point).
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 acceptance is knowledge as repetition.
For example, in assuming the experience of "a bird in a tree", "the bird in the tree" is repeated in the thoughts of the observer as well as the objective empirical experience. First the experience is assumed and then it is repeated through memory and experience. While being repeated through the memory the experience itself it is repeated across a timeline where the experiences lasts for a successive duration of moments. The repetition allows the experience to take form within the observer as a thing in itself and as a thing in itself it exists as a point of change from one phenomenon to another. This point of change allows the phenomenon which is changing existing through its variation into further and further phenomena. It exists because it exists and this existence occurs because of its repetition.
Philosophy, and all reasoning by default, 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. All distinction, that which separates one phenomenon from another is born of this dichotomy. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a rule. Looking at any phenomenon we can observe a series of dualisms:
(insert list)
These converge as a third element in themselves.
This 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 thetical laws, thus repeating the process of dialectic in a newer form through a synthesis.
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.
Philosophy, and all modes of reasoning, are 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 definition is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms where the dualism itself is responsible for the continuum of phenomenon given one phenomenon is divided into another along a progression.
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. The union of what is symmetrical results in not just a new medial phenomenon but necessitates all phenomena as synthetic breaking down into further phenomenon through a divergence.
Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseparable 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. Even in discussing dualisms we are reduced to further basic dualistic terms which allow for the definition of “dualism” through a mediation between extremes.
The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two. This alternation occurs around a center point that is absent of definition which the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being (deficiency in fullness of being) are opposites around void. Unity and multiplicity around nothingness is another example. 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 necessitates the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis into a synthetic state. This synthetic state is the recursion of key variables, within the thesis and antithesis, 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, this tautology can be represented, under the variables:
(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. An example of this would be "dog" progressing to "wild dog" where "wild" as descriptive of "dog" is in itself "not dog". While descriptive, and a part of "dog", "wild" is simultaneously "not dog" thus mandating with the progression of one assertion to another a negative assertion relative to the original is observed.
This negative assertion is some grade of existence which exists as distinct to said prior assertion thus mandating itself as an individual entity which is not limited to the original assertion in certain respects. While the “dog” may be “wild”, what “wild” is is not subject to dog and exists as a distinct entity in itself thus “not dog”.
It is also expressed under the quantities of:
(1→ (2↔-1))
With the progression, on a number line, of 1 to 2 comes a difference of 1 as -1. This considering as the line progresses to a new line a simultaneous negative number line occurs as the reverse progression back to its original form.
This occurs respectively 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" on a number line, as ((0→0)→1). This can be evidenced through a simple line between two points where the progression of a 0d point to a 0d point results in a qualifiable line and a quantifiable 1.
In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another inversive state of thesis to antithesis as a gradation of said forms.
The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into its opposite as form, with this form occuring under another set of opposing states as the gradation of that form. 0 inverts to 1 as nothing into being under ((0→ 0)→ 1) and ((• → •)→ A) respectively. 1 inverts to 2 resulting in -1 as being into non-being under ((1→ 1)→ (2↔-1)). Something such as a “dog“ inverts into a variation of the original “dog” as “not dog”, such as tail or legs under ((A→ A)→(B↔ -A)) respectively.
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 dichotomy and meta-dichotomy being a dichotomy as well.
The resulting thesis and antithesis results in the synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, which is grounded in a tautology of the thesis and antithesis under a new form. Again, using the example of bravery, bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of aggression and cowardice itself.
The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition, by nature, which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Using the example of "bravery" again, this assertion means nothing in itself except through the thetical quality of "aggression" and the antithetical quality of "cowardice".
Both thesis and antithesis revolve around an assertion which is empty in itself. Synthesis has a reverse element where the synthetic assertion as progressing from the thesis and antithesis has meaning, but if inverted in direction of progression it is absent of meaning as an empty assertion the thesis and antithesis revolves around.
The dualism between thesis and antithesis, while defining each other, are centered by an assertion which in itself has no meaning if one progresses away from the synthetic medial definition while has meaning if one progresses towards it. This is considering the assertion is empty in itself except as defined by another assertion. If progressing to a synthetic definition the meaning is derived from the convergence of terms as a tautology. If progressing away from a definition the absence of meaning is derived from the divergence of terms. The medial definition thus acts as having both form and formlessness much in the same manner figuratively, if not literally, as an empty loop. This form is the progression of opposites into another phenomenon where the opposites are empty in themselves, this formless is the progression away from the phenomenon into a dualism where the medial term is empty in itself.
The synthetic assertion acts as a means of change into thesis and antithesis. Assertions are thus complete and consistent as dynamic entities where the process through which the assertion is formed, differs little from the assertion itself. One assertion is undefined through divergence as a process of divergence. Dually one assertion is defined through the convergence of assertions as a process of convergence. As a dynamic process it is 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, as dynamic it is formless and above a set of rules. In simpler terms the assertion as a means of change is the act of change itself. To form an assertion is to create change resulting in further changes as further assertions. There is no guideline for forming an assertion, it is just made.
Again using the example of "bravery", the manifestation of a dichotomy leaves "bravery" as undefined except existing as a medial phenomenon through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice" progressing in definition towards it. Without the thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition. To make the assertion of "bravery" is to create a series of further terms through a formless one, with each of these terms being formless except through further terms. All assertions are thus paradoxical as both that which has form and that which does not have form as the assertion both converges and diverges dependent upon the angle of observation. Continuity is grounded in emptiness, yet this continuity is form.
The application of a perceived 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 a "tautology of definition", as one definition defined through a variety of ways, is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one. This dynamic state is the act of change through emptiness itself. This static state is the containment of this change through form as the containment of emptiness through form. This inversion from one state into an opposing opposite yet symmetrical state is isomorphism. This inversion is change, with this change being embodied through form. For example the change of A into B is embodied under the third variable of C as the containment of these changes. Isomorphism is thus can act of change but this inversion of one phenomenon to another in itself is form. Isomorphism is therefore formless embodied within form much in the same manner a loop is a form which embodies that which is formless (its center point).
Re: Loops and Void
IV
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 cycle is absolute and constant as the maintenance of assertions, one assertion is maintained by its opposite. As existing through the opposite all assertions connect and separate, they connect through a center medial term and they separate through a center medial term. 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 holism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. This contradiction occurs within analysis, under the regress, where in attempting to find one underlying assertion, from which all assertions originate, a series of assertions result. This is considering analysis is the breaking down of an assertion into parts.
This 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 and the whole directs itself into parts again. This dualism between the parts and the whole is a dualism between definition and no definition where the relationships of parts results in definition and the whole, in itself, is undefined except as a self-referencing loop.
In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one and the ambiguous into a lucid under a paradox. This can be seen in word definition as one assertion repeats itself through another under until the multitude of words make the original word ambiguous. Yet the problem occurs if the word does not relate to further words the singular word is ambiguous under its singular state. Thus, with the nature of definition a paradox ensues between too much definition leaving a term empty and ambiguous and too little definition leaving a term empty and ambiguous. The problem occurs as to how to properly define a word without the resulting absence of clarity. Observing the rooting of words being within a synthetic state between extremes seems to imply the most accurate definition of a word, or for any set of assertions for that matter, as trifold: the thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This can be reflected within the works of Hegel.
Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as a recursive spiral where a new definition is expressed under a recursive circularity. This recursive spiral can be defined as one thing is expressed in a variety of ways, thus being what is called a "tautology." Paradoxically 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. Existence is reality.
2. Reality is a state. -
3. State is a condition. --
4. Condition is circumstance. ---
5. Circumstance is a fact. ----
6. Fact is truth. -----
7. Reality is a truth. -
8. Truth is a thing.
9. Thing is an object
10. Object is a material.
11. Material is a state
12. State is a particular. --
13. Particular is an individual.
14. Individual is singular.
15. Singular is condition.
16. Condition is appearance. ---
17. Appearance is looks.
18. Looks is circumstance.
19. Circumstance is an event. ----
20. Event is a fact.
21. Fact is existence. -----
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, as referencing 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 with this context being a self-referential loop.
4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as self-referencing rings.
The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language that it manifests under. This process of definition is the process of being itself. It is this this infinite regress in definition that necessitates all terms, and being for that matter, as existing as an inherent middle given one term, or being, is always progressing to another.
All terms and beings exist as continuums within continuums where definition occurs through a process of change where each term or being, as changing through the ever present now, necessitates all terms or being, and all phenomenon as assumed given language mirrors the same nature of things it is describing, as a constantly moving finite number approach infinity.
In simpler terms the continual divergence of one assumption to another through the "now" necessitates an ever present change. This change necessitates one phenomenon being expressed in a myriad of ways through the fractions/fractals it is inverting too, thus one pattern underlies a set of patterns as an inherent middle pattern from which patterns converge and diverge. The inversion of one continuum to another reflects the continuum, as a phenomenon in itself, repeatedly present as a mode of being. This can be expressed under the argument:
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. This can be expressed under one infinite line existing through many infinite lines. For example, when one line is halved 2 infinite lines results. This is considering each line as infinite when individuated, or multiplied/divided, results in lines which are infinite due to being composed of infinite lines. One infinity is individuated into multiple infinities.
4. The recursion 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 a circularity resulting from repetition. This can be observed through the individuation of a line into new lines, where the successive multiplication/division of the line always results in the same line in a new form as a cycling of the line. One state exists as a fraction/fractal of another as evidenced by the line.
5. Each continuum, as inverting into another continuum, is thus void in and of itself. Each line both begins and ends with 0 in the same manner the beginning and ending of a phenomenon is grounded in void as the means of change from phenomenon into another.
6. All continuums as center points for further continuums, are intrinsically empty contexts given they both begin and end with void (or a 0d point from the perspective of a line) and are self referential at the same time.
7. Each context is an empty ring which results in further empty rings. The line, in these respects, acts as a ring given the same beginning and end point, a 0d point, occurs. This applies to other phenomenon itself given void, as beginning and end, results in a constant median of change which underlies all phenomenon in a cyclical nature. A phenomenon begins with an empty point of origin, given sufficient analysis, and ends with an empty point given further analysis.
This definition of all assertions as continuums applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. Again, a tautology is one thing manifested in a variety of ways.
All expressions are composed of grades of truth considering all assertions, including those which contradict, are true through a recursion where the same thing is expressed in multiple ways. The contradiction can be composed of true assertions thus even a contradiction has a truth value.
For example 2+2=4 is true as 2+2 observes 4 as a variation of 2+2. However, 2+2=5 is a contradiction, yet the assertions which 2+2=5 is composed of still express a recursive self referentiality of 1 under 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1+1=5.
This expression of grades of truth, within all assertions, is determined through an analytical mode of reasoning in which any contradiction is reduced to truthful assertions which form it. All contradictions are grounded in a non-contradictory element therefore necessitating truth occurring through grades where each truth is a fraction/fractal of the one which came before it. What may appear as contradictory is grounded in "particles" of truth that exist as ever present through all modes of reasoning. These particles of truth are points of awareness, thus even within a contradiction an ever present median of awareness connects seemingly opposing phenomenon. This contradiction is therefore cognitive dissonance and this cognitive dissonance is opposing viewpoints where one viewpoint is considered as distinct relative to another. This distinction is the grounding of the definition which allows for seemingly opposing viewpoints to result in some degree of clarity. Contradiction results in clarity with this clarity being the gap which separates these viewpoints as phenomena in themselves.
This can be seen in standard analysis, as the breaking down of assertions, or the scientific method itself. For example a paradox such as the particle wave dualism still necessitates both the particle and wave as rational in themselves given a certain symmetry occurs, as the replication of patterns, resulting in the ordered form of the particle and wave. This pattern may be the movement from point A to point B for the particle or the basic alternating movements of the wave. Dually the opposition of the particle and the wave results in the very same contrast of the particle and wave as defining one another
It is under this reduction to basic foundations, and even beyond, that a truth value is always made manifest. This truth value is grounded in a self referentiality under recursion. Using the example of the particle/wave again the particles movement observes a replication of point A to point B, as the replication of a single point in space, or the wave shows a series of alternating repetition of the directions of up and down expressed under a cycle.
The recursion under a cycle applies to the foundations of knowledge for that matter. Any framework of reasoning, which results in a fact, is in itself a fact in the respect it produces facts. It is a fact the framework produces facts. The fact is reduced to a fact as anything subsequent mode of reasoning beyond it is also a fact. The regress results in the recursion of the very same conclusion or premise it is trying to justify, this being the "fact" itself.
This necessitates all tautologies are spirals by nature.
1. One phenomenon expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomenon expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomenon continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self-expressive nature.
4. 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 each phenomenon as self referencing leads to a new phenomenon with this new phenomenon containing elements which are not part of the original phenomenon.
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 cycle is absolute and constant as the maintenance of assertions, one assertion is maintained by its opposite. As existing through the opposite all assertions connect and separate, they connect through a center medial term and they separate through a center medial term. 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 holism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. This contradiction occurs within analysis, under the regress, where in attempting to find one underlying assertion, from which all assertions originate, a series of assertions result. This is considering analysis is the breaking down of an assertion into parts.
This 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 and the whole directs itself into parts again. This dualism between the parts and the whole is a dualism between definition and no definition where the relationships of parts results in definition and the whole, in itself, is undefined except as a self-referencing loop.
In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one and the ambiguous into a lucid under a paradox. This can be seen in word definition as one assertion repeats itself through another under until the multitude of words make the original word ambiguous. Yet the problem occurs if the word does not relate to further words the singular word is ambiguous under its singular state. Thus, with the nature of definition a paradox ensues between too much definition leaving a term empty and ambiguous and too little definition leaving a term empty and ambiguous. The problem occurs as to how to properly define a word without the resulting absence of clarity. Observing the rooting of words being within a synthetic state between extremes seems to imply the most accurate definition of a word, or for any set of assertions for that matter, as trifold: the thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This can be reflected within the works of Hegel.
Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as a recursive spiral where a new definition is expressed under a recursive circularity. This recursive spiral can be defined as one thing is expressed in a variety of ways, thus being what is called a "tautology." Paradoxically 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. Existence is reality.
2. Reality is a state. -
3. State is a condition. --
4. Condition is circumstance. ---
5. Circumstance is a fact. ----
6. Fact is truth. -----
7. Reality is a truth. -
8. Truth is a thing.
9. Thing is an object
10. Object is a material.
11. Material is a state
12. State is a particular. --
13. Particular is an individual.
14. Individual is singular.
15. Singular is condition.
16. Condition is appearance. ---
17. Appearance is looks.
18. Looks is circumstance.
19. Circumstance is an event. ----
20. Event is a fact.
21. Fact is existence. -----
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, as referencing 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 with this context being a self-referential loop.
4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as self-referencing rings.
The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language that it manifests under. This process of definition is the process of being itself. It is this this infinite regress in definition that necessitates all terms, and being for that matter, as existing as an inherent middle given one term, or being, is always progressing to another.
All terms and beings exist as continuums within continuums where definition occurs through a process of change where each term or being, as changing through the ever present now, necessitates all terms or being, and all phenomenon as assumed given language mirrors the same nature of things it is describing, as a constantly moving finite number approach infinity.
In simpler terms the continual divergence of one assumption to another through the "now" necessitates an ever present change. This change necessitates one phenomenon being expressed in a myriad of ways through the fractions/fractals it is inverting too, thus one pattern underlies a set of patterns as an inherent middle pattern from which patterns converge and diverge. The inversion of one continuum to another reflects the continuum, as a phenomenon in itself, repeatedly present as a mode of being. This can be expressed under the argument:
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. This can be expressed under one infinite line existing through many infinite lines. For example, when one line is halved 2 infinite lines results. This is considering each line as infinite when individuated, or multiplied/divided, results in lines which are infinite due to being composed of infinite lines. One infinity is individuated into multiple infinities.
4. The recursion 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 a circularity resulting from repetition. This can be observed through the individuation of a line into new lines, where the successive multiplication/division of the line always results in the same line in a new form as a cycling of the line. One state exists as a fraction/fractal of another as evidenced by the line.
5. Each continuum, as inverting into another continuum, is thus void in and of itself. Each line both begins and ends with 0 in the same manner the beginning and ending of a phenomenon is grounded in void as the means of change from phenomenon into another.
6. All continuums as center points for further continuums, are intrinsically empty contexts given they both begin and end with void (or a 0d point from the perspective of a line) and are self referential at the same time.
7. Each context is an empty ring which results in further empty rings. The line, in these respects, acts as a ring given the same beginning and end point, a 0d point, occurs. This applies to other phenomenon itself given void, as beginning and end, results in a constant median of change which underlies all phenomenon in a cyclical nature. A phenomenon begins with an empty point of origin, given sufficient analysis, and ends with an empty point given further analysis.
This definition of all assertions as continuums applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. Again, a tautology is one thing manifested in a variety of ways.
All expressions are composed of grades of truth considering all assertions, including those which contradict, are true through a recursion where the same thing is expressed in multiple ways. The contradiction can be composed of true assertions thus even a contradiction has a truth value.
For example 2+2=4 is true as 2+2 observes 4 as a variation of 2+2. However, 2+2=5 is a contradiction, yet the assertions which 2+2=5 is composed of still express a recursive self referentiality of 1 under 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1+1=5.
This expression of grades of truth, within all assertions, is determined through an analytical mode of reasoning in which any contradiction is reduced to truthful assertions which form it. All contradictions are grounded in a non-contradictory element therefore necessitating truth occurring through grades where each truth is a fraction/fractal of the one which came before it. What may appear as contradictory is grounded in "particles" of truth that exist as ever present through all modes of reasoning. These particles of truth are points of awareness, thus even within a contradiction an ever present median of awareness connects seemingly opposing phenomenon. This contradiction is therefore cognitive dissonance and this cognitive dissonance is opposing viewpoints where one viewpoint is considered as distinct relative to another. This distinction is the grounding of the definition which allows for seemingly opposing viewpoints to result in some degree of clarity. Contradiction results in clarity with this clarity being the gap which separates these viewpoints as phenomena in themselves.
This can be seen in standard analysis, as the breaking down of assertions, or the scientific method itself. For example a paradox such as the particle wave dualism still necessitates both the particle and wave as rational in themselves given a certain symmetry occurs, as the replication of patterns, resulting in the ordered form of the particle and wave. This pattern may be the movement from point A to point B for the particle or the basic alternating movements of the wave. Dually the opposition of the particle and the wave results in the very same contrast of the particle and wave as defining one another
It is under this reduction to basic foundations, and even beyond, that a truth value is always made manifest. This truth value is grounded in a self referentiality under recursion. Using the example of the particle/wave again the particles movement observes a replication of point A to point B, as the replication of a single point in space, or the wave shows a series of alternating repetition of the directions of up and down expressed under a cycle.
The recursion under a cycle applies to the foundations of knowledge for that matter. Any framework of reasoning, which results in a fact, is in itself a fact in the respect it produces facts. It is a fact the framework produces facts. The fact is reduced to a fact as anything subsequent mode of reasoning beyond it is also a fact. The regress results in the recursion of the very same conclusion or premise it is trying to justify, this being the "fact" itself.
This necessitates all tautologies are spirals by nature.
1. One phenomenon expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomenon expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomenon continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self-expressive nature.
4. 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 each phenomenon as self referencing leads to a new phenomenon with this new phenomenon containing elements which are not part of the original phenomenon.
Re: Loops and Void
v
These equations all represent Recursive/Isomorphic Contexts. Recursion is the repetition of a phenomenon, isomorphism as the change from one state into symmetrical other, and context as the summation of recursion and isomorphism as a self sustained loop. Context, expressed under "( )", is an empty loop where the identity strictly occurs “as is”.
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 assertion "A" is "cat” and "cat" directs to "wild cat" "B", as "non cat", the recursion of variables in "wild cat", under "cat", occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the "wild" is "not cat" considering they both represent different states of being. “Wild” is one state of being composed of different phenomena, “Cat” is another state of being composed of different phenomena. Both “cat” and “wild” are states of being considering they are composed of different qualities.
So if "cat" progresses to "wild cat" under a regressive string of definitions "wild cat" and "not cat" occurs through each other as differences to what “cat” is through the progressive variation of the looping context "cat is cat". In simpler terms one phenomenon is defined through a loop and this loop progresses to another loop which has both similarities and differences relative to the original context.
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, as 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 where the man missing an arm is still a man through the replication of forms. One and many forms underlie seemingly separate forms.
Every time 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 reflects an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while containing elements of the old at the same time.
This nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts, as one context "( )" where each "( )" is a context:
((A→A)→(B↔-A))
The recursion of the context is reflected as a context, the inversion from one context to another is reflected as another context and the totality of recursion and inversion is in itself a context.
Considering philosophy, and all rational endeavors such as science and religion, are definitive by nature, all rationality follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations as to how and in what manner phenomena are defined. This process of definition applies to all phenomena themselves as mirroring both the philosophy and modes of reasoning which stem from them:
((A→ A)→ B→ (A→ B→ C))
((A→ A)→ (B ↔ -A))
It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirety 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 through language where this language is an application of context. It is a process of manifesting contexts and is nothing other than context
. This applies to all phenomena as well. Being exists as nothing other than a context which reflects into philosophy, science and religion as subsets of being thus are phenomena in themselves. This nature of definition occurs under a pre-set mode of language where language is the process of converging and diverging contexts. This nature of converging and diverging contexts extends beyond language itself and reflects the very nature of being itself where being operates in the same nature of language.The nature of the study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed. This language, as an extension of being, is a phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all phenomenon as following this same nature given that one phenomenon exists through another.
In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exist 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)
These equations all represent Recursive/Isomorphic Contexts. Recursion is the repetition of a phenomenon, isomorphism as the change from one state into symmetrical other, and context as the summation of recursion and isomorphism as a self sustained loop. Context, expressed under "( )", is an empty loop where the identity strictly occurs “as is”.
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 assertion "A" is "cat” and "cat" directs to "wild cat" "B", as "non cat", the recursion of variables in "wild cat", under "cat", occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the "wild" is "not cat" considering they both represent different states of being. “Wild” is one state of being composed of different phenomena, “Cat” is another state of being composed of different phenomena. Both “cat” and “wild” are states of being considering they are composed of different qualities.
So if "cat" progresses to "wild cat" under a regressive string of definitions "wild cat" and "not cat" occurs through each other as differences to what “cat” is through the progressive variation of the looping context "cat is cat". In simpler terms one phenomenon is defined through a loop and this loop progresses to another loop which has both similarities and differences relative to the original context.
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, as 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 where the man missing an arm is still a man through the replication of forms. One and many forms underlie seemingly separate forms.
Every time 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 reflects an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while containing elements of the old at the same time.
This nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts, as one context "( )" where each "( )" is a context:
((A→A)→(B↔-A))
The recursion of the context is reflected as a context, the inversion from one context to another is reflected as another context and the totality of recursion and inversion is in itself a context.
Considering philosophy, and all rational endeavors such as science and religion, are definitive by nature, all rationality follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations as to how and in what manner phenomena are defined. This process of definition applies to all phenomena themselves as mirroring both the philosophy and modes of reasoning which stem from them:
((A→ A)→ B→ (A→ B→ C))
((A→ A)→ (B ↔ -A))
It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirety 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 through language where this language is an application of context. It is a process of manifesting contexts and is nothing other than context
. This applies to all phenomena as well. Being exists as nothing other than a context which reflects into philosophy, science and religion as subsets of being thus are phenomena in themselves. This nature of definition occurs under a pre-set mode of language where language is the process of converging and diverging contexts. This nature of converging and diverging contexts extends beyond language itself and reflects the very nature of being itself where being operates in the same nature of language.The nature of the study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed. This language, as an extension of being, is a phenomenon in itself thus necessitating all phenomenon as following this same nature given that one phenomenon exists through another.
In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exist 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)
Re: Loops and Void
VI
Philosophy is a series of equations which mandate definition through certain laws of definition. In simpler terms these equations are both self-referencing and express themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define definition 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 Law of Identity: (P= P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P≠P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).
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 Munchausen Trilemma. However, the original Aristotelian Law of Identity is contradictory if applied under the Munchausen 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:
1. (P→P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.
2. (P≠-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P.
3. (Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.
Identity is triadic considering the middle term is empty on its own terms, as assumed, and is defined by that which repeats through a continuum under a circularity. This can be seen under the example of P=P where "=" is empty of meaning except through the repetition of P. "=" is purely assumed and this assumption of "=" is defined through a repetition of P by a progression which is circular.
P=P, or more accurately P(p)P where "p" represents “=” "→","↔","←", etc., reflects a triadic nature in both structure and how it reflects through other assertions as p(P)p and ((P)p).
P(p)P, p(P)p, ((P)p) are all variations of the other as a cycling between assertions.
P(p)P where p is defined through P.
p(P)p where P is defined through p.
((P)p) where P and p are defined through each other.
One variable is expressed through a new one in a new variation. Under an expression of P(p)P where p can be defined as a variety of things as "therefore", "equals", "because", etc. the middle term is intrinsically empty and defined through the terms which repeat. It is this repetition which allows for the identity of a formless center term. This in turn necessitates the term which repeats as being the fundamental center considering it is what underlies all definition as a continuous subset which stems across the series of terms. The repetition of P underneath further terms such as Q, R, S, etc necessitates it as a fundamental center. The center term of “=” is dually a center term next to P in a different respect considering “=” is between the terms as a center point empty of definition while P, as repetitive, is a center point considering it stems across a variety of contexts. Center point thus takes a dualistic nature of definition where the actual center, as the mediation between and even number of terms, is also the underlying term which reflects across a series of contexts as a sort of “glue” which holds the contexts together.
p(P)p observes this repetition inversely where P is defined through p. For example, “equals cat equals” necessitates the term “equals” being defined through the center point of “cat”. “Equals” is without definition except through its repetition around a center term. This center point, as empty, allows for the change of one term into another repeat term with this repetition being the grounding of said terms identity properties.
Both P(p)P and p(P)p depend upon a definition through contrast where one term is repeated and another is not. The dualism between P(p)P and p(P)p observes P(p)P and p(P)p define each other so that P and p are defined as existing strictly "as is" under ((P)p) where one context is defined as a tautology of the other as a variation of the original context. P=P is fallacious considering the occurrence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time, cannot be observed under multiple instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing thus each observation of the “same thing” is a different context thus a different thing. At best identity should be describe as (P) where (P) is just a singular one time occurrence of said phenomenon. The (p) of ((P)p) references the active state, or verb, through which the static state (P) is observed. (P) represents the noun state, (p) represents the verb state. The noun exists through the verb and verb through the noun, the static unchanging form exists through its action the action is guided through the unchanging state.
This tautology, where one term variates into another different context allows for a sort of contrast which is necessary for definition.
For example, "is" exists as a variation of "P" where a statement of "Cat is Cat" reflects "Cat is" in which "is" is an action of "cat" as an extension of it. The dynamic state "is" is the static state "Cat" expressed under a new variation where "Cat is" observes "is" as an action which is an extension of "Cat" which defines it.
To state any singular noun is to implicitly follow it with a verb, such as “is”, considering the noun exists for what it is as a dynamic state of being given its quality of emergence. This quality of emergence is the state of individuation from a series of other terms, or rather states of being, and occurs through the definitive state of the verb or rather “action”. The verb, or the act of “action”, is what allows for the noun, or “static” state, to exist as a dynamic quality where it actively reflects as a state of change that fundamentally defines it. Both the verb, as a term, and the nature of action, as a state of being, exists as a process of definition.
“The cat is x” and “The cat is y” both necessitate “the cat is” as a middle assertion which is also responsible for transition to another noun or rather context. This middle assertion is grounded in the act of repetition through a series of contexts.
This middle term, in the respect of it being “that which repeats” necessitates a circularity with this circularity reflecting a self-referential nature. This applies to the laws of identity when observed through this angle. This applies to the laws of identity in a third respect where they 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 separate states of identity. The division of the law of identity necessitates it as manifesting in different degrees. If P=P or –P=-P then one law of identity is viewed as true and the other is viewed as false.
(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. The Law of Excluded Middle can refer to both “=” and “≠” where both “equality” and “nonequality” both respectively revert to P and -P as Pv-P. If P=P is false then P can equate to anything, other than -P, given the law of non contradiction still exists. If P≠-P is false then P=-P given the law of non-contradiction is false and P can equivocate to -P as well as P and anything else.
((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 as ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is another way of saying P=-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.
Philosophy is a series of equations which mandate definition through certain laws of definition. In simpler terms these equations are both self-referencing and express themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define definition 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 Law of Identity: (P= P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P≠P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).
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 Munchausen Trilemma. However, the original Aristotelian Law of Identity is contradictory if applied under the Munchausen 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:
1. (P→P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.
2. (P≠-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P.
3. (Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.
Identity is triadic considering the middle term is empty on its own terms, as assumed, and is defined by that which repeats through a continuum under a circularity. This can be seen under the example of P=P where "=" is empty of meaning except through the repetition of P. "=" is purely assumed and this assumption of "=" is defined through a repetition of P by a progression which is circular.
P=P, or more accurately P(p)P where "p" represents “=” "→","↔","←", etc., reflects a triadic nature in both structure and how it reflects through other assertions as p(P)p and ((P)p).
P(p)P, p(P)p, ((P)p) are all variations of the other as a cycling between assertions.
P(p)P where p is defined through P.
p(P)p where P is defined through p.
((P)p) where P and p are defined through each other.
One variable is expressed through a new one in a new variation. Under an expression of P(p)P where p can be defined as a variety of things as "therefore", "equals", "because", etc. the middle term is intrinsically empty and defined through the terms which repeat. It is this repetition which allows for the identity of a formless center term. This in turn necessitates the term which repeats as being the fundamental center considering it is what underlies all definition as a continuous subset which stems across the series of terms. The repetition of P underneath further terms such as Q, R, S, etc necessitates it as a fundamental center. The center term of “=” is dually a center term next to P in a different respect considering “=” is between the terms as a center point empty of definition while P, as repetitive, is a center point considering it stems across a variety of contexts. Center point thus takes a dualistic nature of definition where the actual center, as the mediation between and even number of terms, is also the underlying term which reflects across a series of contexts as a sort of “glue” which holds the contexts together.
p(P)p observes this repetition inversely where P is defined through p. For example, “equals cat equals” necessitates the term “equals” being defined through the center point of “cat”. “Equals” is without definition except through its repetition around a center term. This center point, as empty, allows for the change of one term into another repeat term with this repetition being the grounding of said terms identity properties.
Both P(p)P and p(P)p depend upon a definition through contrast where one term is repeated and another is not. The dualism between P(p)P and p(P)p observes P(p)P and p(P)p define each other so that P and p are defined as existing strictly "as is" under ((P)p) where one context is defined as a tautology of the other as a variation of the original context. P=P is fallacious considering the occurrence of the same thing, under the same respect and at the same time, cannot be observed under multiple instances necessitate a seperation. P=P necessitates multiple instances of the same thing thus each observation of the “same thing” is a different context thus a different thing. At best identity should be describe as (P) where (P) is just a singular one time occurrence of said phenomenon. The (p) of ((P)p) references the active state, or verb, through which the static state (P) is observed. (P) represents the noun state, (p) represents the verb state. The noun exists through the verb and verb through the noun, the static unchanging form exists through its action the action is guided through the unchanging state.
This tautology, where one term variates into another different context allows for a sort of contrast which is necessary for definition.
For example, "is" exists as a variation of "P" where a statement of "Cat is Cat" reflects "Cat is" in which "is" is an action of "cat" as an extension of it. The dynamic state "is" is the static state "Cat" expressed under a new variation where "Cat is" observes "is" as an action which is an extension of "Cat" which defines it.
To state any singular noun is to implicitly follow it with a verb, such as “is”, considering the noun exists for what it is as a dynamic state of being given its quality of emergence. This quality of emergence is the state of individuation from a series of other terms, or rather states of being, and occurs through the definitive state of the verb or rather “action”. The verb, or the act of “action”, is what allows for the noun, or “static” state, to exist as a dynamic quality where it actively reflects as a state of change that fundamentally defines it. Both the verb, as a term, and the nature of action, as a state of being, exists as a process of definition.
“The cat is x” and “The cat is y” both necessitate “the cat is” as a middle assertion which is also responsible for transition to another noun or rather context. This middle assertion is grounded in the act of repetition through a series of contexts.
This middle term, in the respect of it being “that which repeats” necessitates a circularity with this circularity reflecting a self-referential nature. This applies to the laws of identity when observed through this angle. This applies to the laws of identity in a third respect where they 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 separate states of identity. The division of the law of identity necessitates it as manifesting in different degrees. If P=P or –P=-P then one law of identity is viewed as true and the other is viewed as false.
(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. The Law of Excluded Middle can refer to both “=” and “≠” where both “equality” and “nonequality” both respectively revert to P and -P as Pv-P. If P=P is false then P can equate to anything, other than -P, given the law of non contradiction still exists. If P≠-P is false then P=-P given the law of non-contradiction is false and P can equivocate to -P as well as P and anything else.
((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 as ((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is another way of saying P=-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.
Re: Loops and Void
VII
The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumptions are that which is assumed. That which is assumed is that which is accepted. That which is accepted is imprinted. That which is assumed is that which is imprinted.. This definition of assumption is in itself assumed but shows the isomorphism of one identity into another, i.e. one assumption to many (given each progressive definition of an assumption is in itself an assumption), as well as the recursion of one identity across multiple states, i.e. the nature of "assumption" ranging across all assumptions. 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. An example of this would be the assertion of cat and dog, that while fundamentally different, have the middle term of mammal of fundamentally uniting them.
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. An example of this would be the assertion of a bird. The bird cannot be observed in and of itself without a contrasting phenomenon, such as a tree, defining it by what it is not. The tree cannot be observed in and of itself without another contrasting phenomenon, such as a field, defining it by what it is not. This contrast necessitates each phenomenon as void in itself considering it points to another phenomenon.
3. All assertions, as repeating through other assertions and inherently empty, mandate the assertion as a loop with each loop as composed of further loops necessitate each assertion as a variable. This can be expressed further under the nature of the bird and tree where each type of bird and tree are empty in themselves except as defined by contrast to another type of bird or tree. Yet these multiple types of birds or trees exist under common properties thus necessitating one type of phenomenon, ie the bird or tree, expressed through many phenomenon, i.e. different types of birds or trees. One is expressed through many and many is expressed through one thus necessitating all assertions as variables thus all contexts, as assertions, are variables.
These three assertions point to a problem in the question of equality itself. There is no context which is completely equal to another context, no two rivers are the same yet each quality has an underlying common quality. 1 does not equal 1 as one 1 may equate to a jet and another to a horse. However both the jet and the horse share the same common qualities as consisting of matter, tubules (veins and mechanical tubes), vision ports (eyes and windows), etc. They equate through a singular phenomenon or series of singular phenomena but that singular entity differs as one entity variates into another from a common core. Thus, a middle term is necessary, but no two contexts share the same quality and quantity of middle terms. The middle term reflects as a common point of convergence between phenomena and it also acts as a point of divergence between phenomena. 1=1 and 1≠1 simultaneously thus necessitating both one and many 1s as well as one and many Ps under the assertions of P=P and P≠P.
To delve deeper into these assertions we can break down the nature of identity into three different properties or rather meta-recursively the identities of identity properties :
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 each other 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). This repetition occurs through the inherent emptiness of the assumption thus contains formless through the loop of form. This emptiness, resulting in repetition thus an inherent middle ties law one into the following law two.
For example under the assertion "mammal" lies a series of common elements that exist along a whole spectrum of organisms. Sexual reproduction or lungs exist recursively along the series of organisms thus acting as inherent middle assertions that equivocates seemingly different phenomena by showing a common bond which repeats.
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 assumptions, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. This double negation necessitates all inversions of an assumption begins with a singular state change into a state of multiplicity. Inversion is thus a state of doubling which results in an inherent contrast where the perceived formlessness of an assumption acts as a means of change into both a form and into another form. An assumption as void in itself negates to another assumption as existing through another, one axiom inverts to many.
Every time an 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 inversive element to emptiness 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))
4. All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive given one assumption progresses to another resulting in antithetical elements, as in what the original assumption is not: (P→(Q ↔ -P))
For example a progressive string of phenomenon shows the inherent emptiness of each. A toenail is empty on its own terms except through a toe. A toe is empty on its own terms except through foot, etc. One phenomenon is empty of itself except when defined through another, thus necessitates a phenomenon as defined by what it is not. This progression from one phenomenon to another necessitates each phenomenon as progressing through another phenomenon in a linear manner. This linear manner is a loop given the beginning of the phenomenon is grounded in the emptiness of the prior and the latter phenomenon is empty relative to the phenomenon it progresses too. Void, as change, thus repeats and this repetition ties this second law into that of the first.
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. The assumption as a center point is that which is repeated, through a cycling, across further assumptions. Law three thus ties into law one.
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. A phenomenon changes from one form into another through that which is without form. Law three thus ties into law two.
All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars, and these particulars in turn act as generals. One and many meanings are thus derived from each context. Each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality is composed of a particular which is empty of definition given one particular is defined through another thus empty in and of itself, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. In simpler terms each generality is composed of particulars which exist as undefined except through a constant expansion of definition leaving the general context as empty as a mode of change. P is a generality which represents a series of particulars with each particular acting as a variable given it is a generality of some other particular. This emptiness allows a change, as progression, from one form into another.
Assertions as contexts are distinctions within the fabric of being due to there self referentiality represents a contrast to nothingness. Yet this self referentiality is composed of not just intrinsically empty parts which point to each other, but also each self-referential assertion as always point to something beyond it. Contexts are thus variables and variables necessitate an “as is” state to being given their grounding in both one and many meanings simultaneously
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 as variables:
(((P→ P)→ (Q→ -P))→ ((P→ P)→(Q→ -P)))→ R
For example, "dog" is a series of organisms sharing a similar common bond of qualities as one phenomenon yet exists in multiple states where each "dog" is empty in and of itself except through another breed which keeps defining dog as a series of organisms. One dog exists through many and many exist through one thus necessitating the dog as a context which is equivalent to a variable. Each variable is an observation of one and many states.
The 3 laws of Inherent Middle (Recursion), Inherent Void (Isomorphism) and Inherent Context (Variables) exist as intertwined and One and the same. This oneness occurs through a spiral:
1) The voiding of void results in One supreme context where void, as Nothingness, is negated through the act of "being" considering nothing cannot be observed except through further being. Nothingness cannot be observed on its own terms, except through being, considering nothingness does not exist only being. Nothingness, as observed through being, can only be observed through the multiplicity 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 symmetrical state of void considering being in its totality is formless much in the same manner void is formless.
4) The multiplication of contexts, through the voiding of contexts is recursion. One context is repeated through many where the many exists a fractals of the original.
5) The repetition 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 much in the same manner a circle contains nothingness.
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. This would be equivalent to observing a series of circles within each other.
6) The repetition 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 repetition 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 repetition of being, from one state into another symmetrical state, is isomorphism. Isomorphism and recursion are thetical and antithetical respectively and exist as one phenomenon through context. Context is thus both isomorphic and recursive with isomorphism and recursion being isomorphisms of each other with this isomorphism occurring recursively. 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, i.e. "void", of another context. Recursion maintains the structural integrity of the phenomenon through the repetition of limits. Isomorphism is the change of one phenomenon into another symmetrical state.
9. Contexts are self contained loops as approximations of the one singular context from which they stem from. 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 a 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 repetition of being is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite as a variation of the original.
11d) This repetition of void, within the context as potential context, necessitates recursion existing through context as “being itself”. Existence is repetition, this repetition of void is both a repetition of potentiality and the repetition of multiple states through further multiple states.
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.
The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumptions are that which is assumed. That which is assumed is that which is accepted. That which is accepted is imprinted. That which is assumed is that which is imprinted.. This definition of assumption is in itself assumed but shows the isomorphism of one identity into another, i.e. one assumption to many (given each progressive definition of an assumption is in itself an assumption), as well as the recursion of one identity across multiple states, i.e. the nature of "assumption" ranging across all assumptions. 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. An example of this would be the assertion of cat and dog, that while fundamentally different, have the middle term of mammal of fundamentally uniting them.
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. An example of this would be the assertion of a bird. The bird cannot be observed in and of itself without a contrasting phenomenon, such as a tree, defining it by what it is not. The tree cannot be observed in and of itself without another contrasting phenomenon, such as a field, defining it by what it is not. This contrast necessitates each phenomenon as void in itself considering it points to another phenomenon.
3. All assertions, as repeating through other assertions and inherently empty, mandate the assertion as a loop with each loop as composed of further loops necessitate each assertion as a variable. This can be expressed further under the nature of the bird and tree where each type of bird and tree are empty in themselves except as defined by contrast to another type of bird or tree. Yet these multiple types of birds or trees exist under common properties thus necessitating one type of phenomenon, ie the bird or tree, expressed through many phenomenon, i.e. different types of birds or trees. One is expressed through many and many is expressed through one thus necessitating all assertions as variables thus all contexts, as assertions, are variables.
These three assertions point to a problem in the question of equality itself. There is no context which is completely equal to another context, no two rivers are the same yet each quality has an underlying common quality. 1 does not equal 1 as one 1 may equate to a jet and another to a horse. However both the jet and the horse share the same common qualities as consisting of matter, tubules (veins and mechanical tubes), vision ports (eyes and windows), etc. They equate through a singular phenomenon or series of singular phenomena but that singular entity differs as one entity variates into another from a common core. Thus, a middle term is necessary, but no two contexts share the same quality and quantity of middle terms. The middle term reflects as a common point of convergence between phenomena and it also acts as a point of divergence between phenomena. 1=1 and 1≠1 simultaneously thus necessitating both one and many 1s as well as one and many Ps under the assertions of P=P and P≠P.
To delve deeper into these assertions we can break down the nature of identity into three different properties or rather meta-recursively the identities of identity properties :
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 each other 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). This repetition occurs through the inherent emptiness of the assumption thus contains formless through the loop of form. This emptiness, resulting in repetition thus an inherent middle ties law one into the following law two.
For example under the assertion "mammal" lies a series of common elements that exist along a whole spectrum of organisms. Sexual reproduction or lungs exist recursively along the series of organisms thus acting as inherent middle assertions that equivocates seemingly different phenomena by showing a common bond which repeats.
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 assumptions, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. This double negation necessitates all inversions of an assumption begins with a singular state change into a state of multiplicity. Inversion is thus a state of doubling which results in an inherent contrast where the perceived formlessness of an assumption acts as a means of change into both a form and into another form. An assumption as void in itself negates to another assumption as existing through another, one axiom inverts to many.
Every time an 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 inversive element to emptiness 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))
4. All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive given one assumption progresses to another resulting in antithetical elements, as in what the original assumption is not: (P→(Q ↔ -P))
For example a progressive string of phenomenon shows the inherent emptiness of each. A toenail is empty on its own terms except through a toe. A toe is empty on its own terms except through foot, etc. One phenomenon is empty of itself except when defined through another, thus necessitates a phenomenon as defined by what it is not. This progression from one phenomenon to another necessitates each phenomenon as progressing through another phenomenon in a linear manner. This linear manner is a loop given the beginning of the phenomenon is grounded in the emptiness of the prior and the latter phenomenon is empty relative to the phenomenon it progresses too. Void, as change, thus repeats and this repetition ties this second law into that of the first.
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. The assumption as a center point is that which is repeated, through a cycling, across further assumptions. Law three thus ties into law one.
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. A phenomenon changes from one form into another through that which is without form. Law three thus ties into law two.
All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars, and these particulars in turn act as generals. One and many meanings are thus derived from each context. Each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality is composed of a particular which is empty of definition given one particular is defined through another thus empty in and of itself, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. In simpler terms each generality is composed of particulars which exist as undefined except through a constant expansion of definition leaving the general context as empty as a mode of change. P is a generality which represents a series of particulars with each particular acting as a variable given it is a generality of some other particular. This emptiness allows a change, as progression, from one form into another.
Assertions as contexts are distinctions within the fabric of being due to there self referentiality represents a contrast to nothingness. Yet this self referentiality is composed of not just intrinsically empty parts which point to each other, but also each self-referential assertion as always point to something beyond it. Contexts are thus variables and variables necessitate an “as is” state to being given their grounding in both one and many meanings simultaneously
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 as variables:
(((P→ P)→ (Q→ -P))→ ((P→ P)→(Q→ -P)))→ R
For example, "dog" is a series of organisms sharing a similar common bond of qualities as one phenomenon yet exists in multiple states where each "dog" is empty in and of itself except through another breed which keeps defining dog as a series of organisms. One dog exists through many and many exist through one thus necessitating the dog as a context which is equivalent to a variable. Each variable is an observation of one and many states.
The 3 laws of Inherent Middle (Recursion), Inherent Void (Isomorphism) and Inherent Context (Variables) exist as intertwined and One and the same. This oneness occurs through a spiral:
1) The voiding of void results in One supreme context where void, as Nothingness, is negated through the act of "being" considering nothing cannot be observed except through further being. Nothingness cannot be observed on its own terms, except through being, considering nothingness does not exist only being. Nothingness, as observed through being, can only be observed through the multiplicity 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 symmetrical state of void considering being in its totality is formless much in the same manner void is formless.
4) The multiplication of contexts, through the voiding of contexts is recursion. One context is repeated through many where the many exists a fractals of the original.
5) The repetition 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 much in the same manner a circle contains nothingness.
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. This would be equivalent to observing a series of circles within each other.
6) The repetition 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 repetition 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 repetition of being, from one state into another symmetrical state, is isomorphism. Isomorphism and recursion are thetical and antithetical respectively and exist as one phenomenon through context. Context is thus both isomorphic and recursive with isomorphism and recursion being isomorphisms of each other with this isomorphism occurring recursively. 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, i.e. "void", of another context. Recursion maintains the structural integrity of the phenomenon through the repetition of limits. Isomorphism is the change of one phenomenon into another symmetrical state.
9. Contexts are self contained loops as approximations of the one singular context from which they stem from. 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 a 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 repetition of being is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite as a variation of the original.
11d) This repetition of void, within the context as potential context, necessitates recursion existing through context as “being itself”. Existence is repetition, this repetition of void is both a repetition of potentiality and the repetition of multiple states through further multiple states.
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.
Re: Loops and Void
VIII
These identity properties are not limited to pointing out fallacies in Aristotelian Identity Laws alone, but the fallacies of the fallacies of logic. These fallacies act as negative limits by defining what something is by what it is not. In these respects, they are identity properties by representing what a logical assertion is not.
For example, an argument of authority proves an argument as logical up to 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 authority is fallacious given it is strictly assumed “as is” thus mandating a certain formless pin point from which the justification of the argument is derived.
For another example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not: linear. The argument is rational all the way up to its circularity in which case the premise is repeated in the conclusion thus reflecting an absence of divergence to a new assertion. This absence of divergence to a new assertion thus reflects an absence of analysis that results in a new truth value. This fallaciousness is founded in an absence of progressive linear reasoning where one assertion is justified by its divergence to a new assertion. Justification is derived from one assertion progressing to another where each assertion is defined by what it progresses towards as a variation of the original assertion into a new form. Justification occurs through the variation of an assertion with these variations being connected thus providing definition.
So while the premise and conclusion, or the beginning and end of the assertion, are true, an absence of truth value occurs because of the absence of justification of the assertion through another assertion. One assertion is defined by its relationship to another and with this absence of relation a contradiction occurs given the assertion is absent of further defining assertions therefore leaving it as fundamentally formless in nature. Absence of form is contradiction considering that which is without form is that which cannot be sensed and this absence of form occurs through the emptiness of the circularity.
Contradiction is distinction and this distinction occurs through a formlessness which seperates the forms and manifests their distinction. However, circularity has form through the repetition of assertions with this repetition resulting in a circularity. Thus, circularity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction given that form results, it results in contradiction given this form is empty. Definition is derived from one loop progressing to another with these loops simultaneously being both contradicting and not contradicting in nature.
Thus, with the fallacy the argument exists up to what it is not, what it is not proves what it is as a "limit" to it; a fallacy acts as a negative proof.
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. For example, a pond is defined by what it contains, water, depth, etc. It is also defined by what it is not: dirt, sky, road, etc.
However, all fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy under a paradox. For example, the fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated through the fallacy of authority. This is considering all assertions a taken as authoritative through the observer manifesting them. 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.
A third example is the fallacy of slippery slope where one assertion manifests to a different assertion continually. This difference is variation, variation is divergence, divergence is dissimilarity, dissimilarity is deviation, etc. The fallacy of slippery slope, in its definition, is defined through the same slippery slope fallacy as it can be defined by a continual divergence of definitions.
Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves where one truth value results in its symmetrical opposite as falsity; an example: The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this fallacy of circularity is circular therefore is a fallacy. Thus the fallacy both exists and does not exist and acts as the key point of an argument’s inversion into another argument.
For example in observing the fallacy of authority results in the argument, as grounded in authority, as diverging away from an authority in an effort to correctly define it. The same applies to circularity where what is circular is redefined into a non circular manner to correct the argument. The fallacy acts as the limit to where what is logical is limited by what is illogical thus necessitating a further argument stemming from these limits in order to continue what is logical.
The fallacies can be broken down to several root forms which exist as simultaneous and dependent upon one another:
1. All fallacies can be negated when self-applied. For example, the fallacy of authority is taken on authority, the fallacy of circularity is taken as circular, or slippery slope is defined through slippery slope.
2 All fallacies can be applied to other fallacies thus negating the fallacy. The fallacy of circularity is a mandated on behalf of an authority thus exists because of an authority thus negating the fallacy of circularity through the fallacy of authority.
3. All fallacies as continuously redefined, through the fallacies of regression and slippery slope, necessitates the fallacy as still existing in new forms through an infinite regress. This manifestation of fallacies under new forms necessitates the fallacy as always existing under a newer form while simultaneously being continually negated as each new form is negated under a self referentiality.
4. One fallacy results in another. For example, the fallacy of circularity, as authoritative, results in the fallacy of authority. The fallacy of authority, as circular, results in the fallacy of circularity thus one fallacy regresses to another as the fallacy of slippery slope with slippery slope being circular when applied to itself.
5. All fallacies as negated necessitate all fallacies as truth values. For example, the fallacy of circularity negated necessitates circularity as fundamental or the fallacy of authority as negated thus necessitating authority as inherent. The fallacy as negated sets foundations for what constitutes a valid assertion.
6. All fallacies are assumed “as is” and this as is nature mandates the fallacies as a means through which an argument is assumed given it is the guiding pattern which determines an assertions validity. It is the means of defining an argument by both what it is and is not given its isomorphic nature, as both existing and not existing, is the means through which an assertion is assumed.
The nature of the fallacies contradicting themselves sets up all modes of reasoning, and philosophy by default as inherently contradictive given the boundaries through which logic operates are the very same boundaries which result in contradiction. This contradictive nature within philosophy, and reason, can be seen under the following argument:
There is “no thing in itself”.
This is a principle thus a thing.
A contradiction occurs thus necessitating “no thing in itself” as non-existent as it is empty.
“No thing in itself” however exists as a principle thus simultaneously exists.
There is “no thing in itself” and “a thing in itself”.
Reality is thus empty forms conducive to a form within a form where the form is empty and as empty contains further empty forms which contain further empty forms all of which are empty.
The form within a form necessitates empty form as the perpetual underlying essence of all forms thus an inherent middle. Reality thus has an essence of a thing in itself but this essence is empty.
Form and absence of form, as existing through the other, thus equivocate as one and the same thing but are observed through a multiplicity of assertions thus setting up the premises as fundamentally contradictive.
This contradiction results in ismorphism given one state results in a totally symmetrical opposite state. The isomorphic nature of fallacies and non-fallacies sets the premise for truth values as isomorphic as well where the inversion of one assertion to many assertions sets the premises for assertions as existing through degrees considering one thing is expressed in a variety of ways.
Just as the inversion of one fallacy results into another results in many fallacies the same nature applies to truth values. These degrees are variations of the original source. This can be seen with the inversion of truth to falsity as an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. The Good, in this case, equivocates to a truth value as the value of truth. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. This symmetry between the one and many can be observed under the example of one and many points: a singular point is symmetrical to an infinite number of points which appear as a singular point. This can be further observed with the example of Good and Evil. One Good inverting to many goods inverts one Good 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 composed of degrees necessitates one 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 the many assertions manifesting in degrees thus resulting in the antithesis as to what the assertion is not given with gradation comes seperation.
This shows, through recursion of the original assertion, that an isomorphism simultaneously occurs where the variation of one assertion to another results in a simultaneous antithesis. Isomorphism represents the gradation of one phenomenon into many parts which reflect the original phenomenon but are separate and distinct in themselves. This distinction is represented in the respect one phenomenon acts as a point of change to another phenomenon.
This is considering it splits the phenomenon into symmetrical halves which are distinct yet point to the same thing. This same thing being the original assertion itself. For example in Good splitting to a lesser good (evil) the split reflects the original assertion of Good itself where the new form is a fractal of the old, thus containing similar elements. An example of this would be 1 splitting to 2 where 2 is one halved and contains elements of one but not being one in itself.
These identity properties are not limited to pointing out fallacies in Aristotelian Identity Laws alone, but the fallacies of the fallacies of logic. These fallacies act as negative limits by defining what something is by what it is not. In these respects, they are identity properties by representing what a logical assertion is not.
For example, an argument of authority proves an argument as logical up to 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 authority is fallacious given it is strictly assumed “as is” thus mandating a certain formless pin point from which the justification of the argument is derived.
For another example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not: linear. The argument is rational all the way up to its circularity in which case the premise is repeated in the conclusion thus reflecting an absence of divergence to a new assertion. This absence of divergence to a new assertion thus reflects an absence of analysis that results in a new truth value. This fallaciousness is founded in an absence of progressive linear reasoning where one assertion is justified by its divergence to a new assertion. Justification is derived from one assertion progressing to another where each assertion is defined by what it progresses towards as a variation of the original assertion into a new form. Justification occurs through the variation of an assertion with these variations being connected thus providing definition.
So while the premise and conclusion, or the beginning and end of the assertion, are true, an absence of truth value occurs because of the absence of justification of the assertion through another assertion. One assertion is defined by its relationship to another and with this absence of relation a contradiction occurs given the assertion is absent of further defining assertions therefore leaving it as fundamentally formless in nature. Absence of form is contradiction considering that which is without form is that which cannot be sensed and this absence of form occurs through the emptiness of the circularity.
Contradiction is distinction and this distinction occurs through a formlessness which seperates the forms and manifests their distinction. However, circularity has form through the repetition of assertions with this repetition resulting in a circularity. Thus, circularity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction. It is not a contradiction given that form results, it results in contradiction given this form is empty. Definition is derived from one loop progressing to another with these loops simultaneously being both contradicting and not contradicting in nature.
Thus, with the fallacy the argument exists up to what it is not, what it is not proves what it is as a "limit" to it; a fallacy acts as a negative proof.
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. For example, a pond is defined by what it contains, water, depth, etc. It is also defined by what it is not: dirt, sky, road, etc.
However, all fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy under a paradox. For example, the fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated through the fallacy of authority. This is considering all assertions a taken as authoritative through the observer manifesting them. 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.
A third example is the fallacy of slippery slope where one assertion manifests to a different assertion continually. This difference is variation, variation is divergence, divergence is dissimilarity, dissimilarity is deviation, etc. The fallacy of slippery slope, in its definition, is defined through the same slippery slope fallacy as it can be defined by a continual divergence of definitions.
Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves where one truth value results in its symmetrical opposite as falsity; an example: The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this fallacy of circularity is circular therefore is a fallacy. Thus the fallacy both exists and does not exist and acts as the key point of an argument’s inversion into another argument.
For example in observing the fallacy of authority results in the argument, as grounded in authority, as diverging away from an authority in an effort to correctly define it. The same applies to circularity where what is circular is redefined into a non circular manner to correct the argument. The fallacy acts as the limit to where what is logical is limited by what is illogical thus necessitating a further argument stemming from these limits in order to continue what is logical.
The fallacies can be broken down to several root forms which exist as simultaneous and dependent upon one another:
1. All fallacies can be negated when self-applied. For example, the fallacy of authority is taken on authority, the fallacy of circularity is taken as circular, or slippery slope is defined through slippery slope.
2 All fallacies can be applied to other fallacies thus negating the fallacy. The fallacy of circularity is a mandated on behalf of an authority thus exists because of an authority thus negating the fallacy of circularity through the fallacy of authority.
3. All fallacies as continuously redefined, through the fallacies of regression and slippery slope, necessitates the fallacy as still existing in new forms through an infinite regress. This manifestation of fallacies under new forms necessitates the fallacy as always existing under a newer form while simultaneously being continually negated as each new form is negated under a self referentiality.
4. One fallacy results in another. For example, the fallacy of circularity, as authoritative, results in the fallacy of authority. The fallacy of authority, as circular, results in the fallacy of circularity thus one fallacy regresses to another as the fallacy of slippery slope with slippery slope being circular when applied to itself.
5. All fallacies as negated necessitate all fallacies as truth values. For example, the fallacy of circularity negated necessitates circularity as fundamental or the fallacy of authority as negated thus necessitating authority as inherent. The fallacy as negated sets foundations for what constitutes a valid assertion.
6. All fallacies are assumed “as is” and this as is nature mandates the fallacies as a means through which an argument is assumed given it is the guiding pattern which determines an assertions validity. It is the means of defining an argument by both what it is and is not given its isomorphic nature, as both existing and not existing, is the means through which an assertion is assumed.
The nature of the fallacies contradicting themselves sets up all modes of reasoning, and philosophy by default as inherently contradictive given the boundaries through which logic operates are the very same boundaries which result in contradiction. This contradictive nature within philosophy, and reason, can be seen under the following argument:
There is “no thing in itself”.
This is a principle thus a thing.
A contradiction occurs thus necessitating “no thing in itself” as non-existent as it is empty.
“No thing in itself” however exists as a principle thus simultaneously exists.
There is “no thing in itself” and “a thing in itself”.
Reality is thus empty forms conducive to a form within a form where the form is empty and as empty contains further empty forms which contain further empty forms all of which are empty.
The form within a form necessitates empty form as the perpetual underlying essence of all forms thus an inherent middle. Reality thus has an essence of a thing in itself but this essence is empty.
Form and absence of form, as existing through the other, thus equivocate as one and the same thing but are observed through a multiplicity of assertions thus setting up the premises as fundamentally contradictive.
This contradiction results in ismorphism given one state results in a totally symmetrical opposite state. The isomorphic nature of fallacies and non-fallacies sets the premise for truth values as isomorphic as well where the inversion of one assertion to many assertions sets the premises for assertions as existing through degrees considering one thing is expressed in a variety of ways.
Just as the inversion of one fallacy results into another results in many fallacies the same nature applies to truth values. These degrees are variations of the original source. This can be seen with the inversion of truth to falsity as an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. The Good, in this case, equivocates to a truth value as the value of truth. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. This symmetry between the one and many can be observed under the example of one and many points: a singular point is symmetrical to an infinite number of points which appear as a singular point. This can be further observed with the example of Good and Evil. One Good inverting to many goods inverts one Good 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 composed of degrees necessitates one 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 the many assertions manifesting in degrees thus resulting in the antithesis as to what the assertion is not given with gradation comes seperation.
This shows, through recursion of the original assertion, that an isomorphism simultaneously occurs where the variation of one assertion to another results in a simultaneous antithesis. Isomorphism represents the gradation of one phenomenon into many parts which reflect the original phenomenon but are separate and distinct in themselves. This distinction is represented in the respect one phenomenon acts as a point of change to another phenomenon.
This is considering it splits the phenomenon into symmetrical halves which are distinct yet point to the same thing. This same thing being the original assertion itself. For example in Good splitting to a lesser good (evil) the split reflects the original assertion of Good itself where the new form is a fractal of the old, thus containing similar elements. An example of this would be 1 splitting to 2 where 2 is one halved and contains elements of one but not being one in itself.
Re: Loops and Void
IX
It is these tautologies of assertions, through a thesis and antithesis, which necessitate philosophy, and the rational endeavors of science and religion, at the 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” and “x” exists. Questions are assertions of facts. As assertions they manifest an actuality/potentiality dualism where the fact presented, "y", is open to an further expression and potential definition. "x" as an actual state of definition is thetical, "y" as undefined potential is antithetical. Y can be replaced with "color" where the question is "what color is x?" Under this question the fact of "color" exists yet is open to further definition as potential definition.
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 newly given context made present.
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. Again, respectively, one context acts as a thesis that is actualized, "x", and combined with an undefined potential state, "y", which is antithetical.
This synthetic nature is the observation of both an actual and potential state existing within the question itself and all answers which stem from it; 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. It is this synthesis between the actual and potential which results in a tautological synthetic state, stemming from the thesis and antithesis, as the answer itself, where the point of view of the observer is the beginning of the tautology.
The next question of "what is the point of view?" stems from its origin, the observer(s), as being the formless center from which both isomorphism and recursion occurs. This formlessness is grounding in the assumptive capacity of the angle of observation where what is assumed does so through the imprinting of form onto a previously formless state. That which assumes is formless and this formlessness is derived from the intrinsic emptiness of thought which lies behind a singular thought or train of thoughts.
This imprint of one form onto that which is formless results in the form changing to another form. For example, in observing a line, the line is observed in contrast to nothingness, yet this contrasting nothingness forces one to analyze the line at an ever-deeper angle thus resulting in seeing the single line as composed of many more lines. That contrast of one form against a void results in the form progressively diverging into further forms with these further forms being fractions/fractals of the original.
Observation thus begins with void. Another example of this can be made within the act of observing one’s observations. In observing oneself observing there is a point which one cannot observe past, an emptiness within the observation of what is observed as form, in which observation fundamentally rests. In simpler terms in observing oneself observe one observes an empty state through which one observes. This emptiness can only be observed in contrast to the form being observed.
In these respects, void is grounded within a nature of contrast as a center point between the dualisms of one form and another. It is the manifestation of dualisms, through the contrast of one phenomenon and another, which necessitates an equilibrium occurring with this equilibrium being the leveling of a phenomenon to a point zero from which it originates. The forms are observed as both composing and composed of other forms yet the center point between these forms necessitates a fundamental emptiness given the forms break down to fundamentally nothing.
This contrast necessitates a continual divergence of forms. Contrast comes from a center point of nothingness and is twofold: One form in contrast to another not only necessitates form as contrasting to another form but form as contrasting to nothingness. This can be observed within the contrast of a bird against a tree and that of nothingness. In observing the fundamental forms of the bird and the tree a curvature of the phenomena, as in the curves which form the phenomena, exists as the means of distinction between the bird and the tree. These curves which contrast the phenomena are fundamentally empty in themselves except through further curvature. Dually the bird existing in contrast to nothingness is a series of curves which are composed of further curves given the bird, as singular entity within the contrasting void, is composed of further parts.. The distinction occurs through the curvature from which the phenomenon are composed.
This distinction, between one phenomenon and another and one phenomenon to nothingness, allows one phenomenon to emerge from another or void. However, this emergence is nothing other than the curvature itself with this curvature being empty upon closer analysis. It is this curvature, which is the grounding of forms, which imprints itself against the void nature of one’s subjective perspective thus resulting in a form emerging from nothing.
The curvature as nothing, and the angle of observation rooted in nothing, shows a self-negation as the beginning of form through a self referentiality where nothingness on its own terms negates itself into being given that nothingness cannot exist on its own terms. Void voids Void, as there is no nothing, thus resulting in a original form of circularity through a negation of negation. The beginning of form is grounded in cycles. This cannot be spoken of, or described through language, except through contradiction; yet it is this contradiction, as the opposition of phenomenon, which is the grounding for all distinction. Being comes into being through opposition as opposition.
Contradiction is the grounding point of observing not just physical phenomenon, through contrast, but even seemingly abstract concepts as well. Void is unobservable, except through contrast, given that nothing is there. In simpler terms void is not only the beginning of a point of view but manifests itself across a variety of phenomenon through the nature of opposition where seemingly connected, yet different phenomenon, rotate around a formless center point. This formless center point is the subjective angle of the observer given that all points of view, when observing a thought, have intrinsically nothing behind the thoughts thus are empty in themselves. This subjectivity of subjectivity, as voiding of void, is the grounding of objectivity where a previously formless subjective state results in objective form through the multiplication of subjective states. The multiplication of void is the cancelation of void, thus resulting in a form much in the same manner the multiplication of 0d points results in a line or circle.
In these respects, the point of view transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge, that which is observed prior to or after the senses, under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic. The Big Bang observes all physical phenomenon stemming from a point. The Principle of Explosion observes from contradictions anything follows; ie an inherently empty point of view voiding its void nature resulting in a plethora of assertions. On one hand being stems from a point is space, that which is without form or depth, and on the other hand all abstractions stem from a series of contradictions as opposing assertions cycling around a center point of the observer which is formless.
These principles occur both abstractly and empirically. But first "what is abstraction?" And "what is empirical?"
1. Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging" as the manifestation of form through our rational faculties that is continually repeated as an experience through memory and thought.
2. Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change" as the manifestation of forms through the five senses where one phenomenon changes into another.
To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected. Simple enough:
1. Abstractions are connected to abstractions.
2. Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.
The problem occurs with "connection" as both a core term and as a distinct phenomenon within the totality of existence:
1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomena exist through abstractions as what is physical is defined through abstractions.
2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomena as what is abstract is defined through what is physical.
3. If "connection", as a context in which a phenomenon is united to another, is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.
4. If both the abstract and physical are one and the same they are so through being united through space where one form inverts to another yet is perpetually united by a curvature which composes the phenomena; this curvature both acting as the forms through which distinction appears yet it intrinsically empty in and of itself as an extension of the void from which it appears. All empirical and abstract phenomenon are composed of forms, these forms are spatial, this spatial nature is curvature. An example of this being the number one, as a quantifier, being inseperable from that which it quantifies. That which it quantifies is a form with the most basic form being that of a spatial nature, ie the line, point and circle
The alignment between symbols and real phenomena are determined by abstractions and empirical phenomena being united as one entity or a single set. A symbol merely points to an object, but as pointing this necessitates a common bond between the abstract symbol and the physical phenomenon.
In these respects, all symbols are objects in themselves. Both abstractions and that which are physical operate as distinctions within the vastness of the totality of “all that there is”. This connection between the abstract and the physical necessitates a common form of "pointing" where one phenomenon is directed by another through a linear progression. This linear progression necessitates a form, that of the line, which supersedes and exists through the abstract and empirical reality simultaneously. The simple progression of one phenomenon to another necessitates the line as an underlying form. Dually the empirical phenomenon and the abstract symbol which points to it, and vice versa, form a circularity between the two thus necessitating an underlying form of the circle in determining the connection between what is abstract and what is physical. Third the abstract and empirical phenomena are points of view, thus necessitating an inherent emptiness in themselves where each phenomena are reduced to points given there formless nature as being strict assertions. All assertions are points of view are all assertions as singular points in themselves given they represent the origin of one assertion into another.
The abstract and empirical, as both distinct dimensions of reality, effectively overlap thus requiring a common median between the two. This median is form and this form is expressed under the forms of the line, point and circle given the progression, maintenance and assumptive nature of assertions. Dually the phenomena of the point, line and circle result in each other considering the line is a loop given its beginning and end point, and that which is contained between multiple successive lines, is void. One empty assertion progresses to another empty assertion with the containment of the emptiness of these assertions occurring through their progression of one to another. The circular nature of the assertion, as referencing itself through another assertion results in a line given one empty form, that of one circular reasoning, progresses to another circular rationale. The progressive nature of the line as void to void, and the circularity it entails, necessitates an intrinsic void which underlies all phenomena. This void is the point and the point exists as both one and the same as the line and circle. All phenomena have a triadic nature of existing through a linearism, circularity and point nature.
It is these tautologies of assertions, through a thesis and antithesis, which necessitate philosophy, and the rational endeavors of science and religion, at the 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” and “x” exists. Questions are assertions of facts. As assertions they manifest an actuality/potentiality dualism where the fact presented, "y", is open to an further expression and potential definition. "x" as an actual state of definition is thetical, "y" as undefined potential is antithetical. Y can be replaced with "color" where the question is "what color is x?" Under this question the fact of "color" exists yet is open to further definition as potential definition.
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 newly given context made present.
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. Again, respectively, one context acts as a thesis that is actualized, "x", and combined with an undefined potential state, "y", which is antithetical.
This synthetic nature is the observation of both an actual and potential state existing within the question itself and all answers which stem from it; 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. It is this synthesis between the actual and potential which results in a tautological synthetic state, stemming from the thesis and antithesis, as the answer itself, where the point of view of the observer is the beginning of the tautology.
The next question of "what is the point of view?" stems from its origin, the observer(s), as being the formless center from which both isomorphism and recursion occurs. This formlessness is grounding in the assumptive capacity of the angle of observation where what is assumed does so through the imprinting of form onto a previously formless state. That which assumes is formless and this formlessness is derived from the intrinsic emptiness of thought which lies behind a singular thought or train of thoughts.
This imprint of one form onto that which is formless results in the form changing to another form. For example, in observing a line, the line is observed in contrast to nothingness, yet this contrasting nothingness forces one to analyze the line at an ever-deeper angle thus resulting in seeing the single line as composed of many more lines. That contrast of one form against a void results in the form progressively diverging into further forms with these further forms being fractions/fractals of the original.
Observation thus begins with void. Another example of this can be made within the act of observing one’s observations. In observing oneself observing there is a point which one cannot observe past, an emptiness within the observation of what is observed as form, in which observation fundamentally rests. In simpler terms in observing oneself observe one observes an empty state through which one observes. This emptiness can only be observed in contrast to the form being observed.
In these respects, void is grounded within a nature of contrast as a center point between the dualisms of one form and another. It is the manifestation of dualisms, through the contrast of one phenomenon and another, which necessitates an equilibrium occurring with this equilibrium being the leveling of a phenomenon to a point zero from which it originates. The forms are observed as both composing and composed of other forms yet the center point between these forms necessitates a fundamental emptiness given the forms break down to fundamentally nothing.
This contrast necessitates a continual divergence of forms. Contrast comes from a center point of nothingness and is twofold: One form in contrast to another not only necessitates form as contrasting to another form but form as contrasting to nothingness. This can be observed within the contrast of a bird against a tree and that of nothingness. In observing the fundamental forms of the bird and the tree a curvature of the phenomena, as in the curves which form the phenomena, exists as the means of distinction between the bird and the tree. These curves which contrast the phenomena are fundamentally empty in themselves except through further curvature. Dually the bird existing in contrast to nothingness is a series of curves which are composed of further curves given the bird, as singular entity within the contrasting void, is composed of further parts.. The distinction occurs through the curvature from which the phenomenon are composed.
This distinction, between one phenomenon and another and one phenomenon to nothingness, allows one phenomenon to emerge from another or void. However, this emergence is nothing other than the curvature itself with this curvature being empty upon closer analysis. It is this curvature, which is the grounding of forms, which imprints itself against the void nature of one’s subjective perspective thus resulting in a form emerging from nothing.
The curvature as nothing, and the angle of observation rooted in nothing, shows a self-negation as the beginning of form through a self referentiality where nothingness on its own terms negates itself into being given that nothingness cannot exist on its own terms. Void voids Void, as there is no nothing, thus resulting in a original form of circularity through a negation of negation. The beginning of form is grounded in cycles. This cannot be spoken of, or described through language, except through contradiction; yet it is this contradiction, as the opposition of phenomenon, which is the grounding for all distinction. Being comes into being through opposition as opposition.
Contradiction is the grounding point of observing not just physical phenomenon, through contrast, but even seemingly abstract concepts as well. Void is unobservable, except through contrast, given that nothing is there. In simpler terms void is not only the beginning of a point of view but manifests itself across a variety of phenomenon through the nature of opposition where seemingly connected, yet different phenomenon, rotate around a formless center point. This formless center point is the subjective angle of the observer given that all points of view, when observing a thought, have intrinsically nothing behind the thoughts thus are empty in themselves. This subjectivity of subjectivity, as voiding of void, is the grounding of objectivity where a previously formless subjective state results in objective form through the multiplication of subjective states. The multiplication of void is the cancelation of void, thus resulting in a form much in the same manner the multiplication of 0d points results in a line or circle.
In these respects, the point of view transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge, that which is observed prior to or after the senses, under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic. The Big Bang observes all physical phenomenon stemming from a point. The Principle of Explosion observes from contradictions anything follows; ie an inherently empty point of view voiding its void nature resulting in a plethora of assertions. On one hand being stems from a point is space, that which is without form or depth, and on the other hand all abstractions stem from a series of contradictions as opposing assertions cycling around a center point of the observer which is formless.
These principles occur both abstractly and empirically. But first "what is abstraction?" And "what is empirical?"
1. Abstraction can be defined as "knowledge through idea" or "unchanging" as the manifestation of form through our rational faculties that is continually repeated as an experience through memory and thought.
2. Empirical can be defined as "knowledge through senses" or "event change" as the manifestation of forms through the five senses where one phenomenon changes into another.
To argue that abstraction is distinct from the senses, and vice versa, is to argue they are not connected. Simple enough:
1. Abstractions are connected to abstractions.
2. Physical phenomenon are connected to physical phenomenon.
The problem occurs with "connection" as both a core term and as a distinct phenomenon within the totality of existence:
1. If it is an abstraction, then physical phenomena exist through abstractions as what is physical is defined through abstractions.
2. If it is physical, then abstractions exist through physical phenomena as what is abstract is defined through what is physical.
3. If "connection", as a context in which a phenomenon is united to another, is both physical and abstract then there is no dichotomy.
4. If both the abstract and physical are one and the same they are so through being united through space where one form inverts to another yet is perpetually united by a curvature which composes the phenomena; this curvature both acting as the forms through which distinction appears yet it intrinsically empty in and of itself as an extension of the void from which it appears. All empirical and abstract phenomenon are composed of forms, these forms are spatial, this spatial nature is curvature. An example of this being the number one, as a quantifier, being inseperable from that which it quantifies. That which it quantifies is a form with the most basic form being that of a spatial nature, ie the line, point and circle
The alignment between symbols and real phenomena are determined by abstractions and empirical phenomena being united as one entity or a single set. A symbol merely points to an object, but as pointing this necessitates a common bond between the abstract symbol and the physical phenomenon.
In these respects, all symbols are objects in themselves. Both abstractions and that which are physical operate as distinctions within the vastness of the totality of “all that there is”. This connection between the abstract and the physical necessitates a common form of "pointing" where one phenomenon is directed by another through a linear progression. This linear progression necessitates a form, that of the line, which supersedes and exists through the abstract and empirical reality simultaneously. The simple progression of one phenomenon to another necessitates the line as an underlying form. Dually the empirical phenomenon and the abstract symbol which points to it, and vice versa, form a circularity between the two thus necessitating an underlying form of the circle in determining the connection between what is abstract and what is physical. Third the abstract and empirical phenomena are points of view, thus necessitating an inherent emptiness in themselves where each phenomena are reduced to points given there formless nature as being strict assertions. All assertions are points of view are all assertions as singular points in themselves given they represent the origin of one assertion into another.
The abstract and empirical, as both distinct dimensions of reality, effectively overlap thus requiring a common median between the two. This median is form and this form is expressed under the forms of the line, point and circle given the progression, maintenance and assumptive nature of assertions. Dually the phenomena of the point, line and circle result in each other considering the line is a loop given its beginning and end point, and that which is contained between multiple successive lines, is void. One empty assertion progresses to another empty assertion with the containment of the emptiness of these assertions occurring through their progression of one to another. The circular nature of the assertion, as referencing itself through another assertion results in a line given one empty form, that of one circular reasoning, progresses to another circular rationale. The progressive nature of the line as void to void, and the circularity it entails, necessitates an intrinsic void which underlies all phenomena. This void is the point and the point exists as both one and the same as the line and circle. All phenomena have a triadic nature of existing through a linearism, circularity and point nature.
Re: Loops and Void
X
What exists as beyond both empirical and abstract knowledge is form and what exists, paradoxically, beyond form is formlessness. Change exists as beyond form itself considering its grounding in void which is beyond being as it is fundamentally nothing. Void is formlessness, formlessness is the absence of form, absence of form is the change of one form to another. It thus necessitates forms as the changing of change where each form exists as a boundary of change which inverts to another boundary of change. This is considering all forms contain at their center point void.
A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. This complexity is the multitude of points as the multitude of changes which occur within any given form. The form is thus the embodiment of change much in the same manner the loop is the embodiment of formlessness as the containment of void as the containment of the point. As to the points they 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. Another thing, a perspective for instance, may be the summation of multiple points of view revolving around a common assertion.
Just as the Big Bang of physics originates from a point self-negating into new points, and the Principle of Explosion originates from a contradictory point of view resulting in new points of view, so do forms originate from a single source. This source is the point and it is that which is absent of any form or volume, it can only be observed as the change of one phenomenon to another. Phenomenon composed of points are composed of change. An example of this would be the line or circle. The point observes the change of one line into another line or one circle into another.
Another example would be all phenomenon resulting in points. An object at a distance is reduced to a point. An object up close is reduced to points. The change in one position of a phenomenon to another results in the phenomenon expanding an contracting from a point. The expansion or contraction of a phenomenon is reduced to (a) point(s) where the point is the median of change from one phenomenon to another.
The absence of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points. This can be reflected as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field. 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. This point is intrinsically empty through the point of view, of the observer's assumptive capacity, in which reality is imprinted. It is also intrinsically empty of volume, thus form, empirically. Now if this formless abyss divides through a self-negation into a line between two points or a circle, as multiple lines between points. This occurs as the division of the point. Formlessness self-negates, through double negation, into form. The point negates itself into form, yet the point in itself is fundamentally nothing.
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 as synonymous to the particle wave dualism. On one hand the point is formless, when observed in a singular state. On the other hand, it allows for form when observed in multiple states. Singularity results in formlessness. Multiplicity results in form. This point represents the origin of both the empirical point particle of physics and the point of view of all logical assertions.
It is this self-negation of the point which results from this nature as a single point and boundless field. This self-negation results in the recursion of the point, be it abstract point of view or empirical particle. Considering all is asserted from Nothingness this self-negation, where formlessness results in form and one form results in many, applies to the nature of assumption as well considering all is assumed. One assumption results in another and is maintain as an assertion, amidst the multiple assertions, due to this underlying nature of assertion.
All knowledge, as grounded in imprinting under the nature of assumption, is grounded within a point 0 and this point 0 divides itself into form much in the same manner where a point divides into a singular line or singular circle which represents the quantity of “1”.
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. All empirical and abstract being results from a circular doubling.
This circularity occurs further as the assertion breaks down into multiple assertions and resynthesizes into a single assertion. This takes the nature of a pulse. Knowledge expands then contracts then re-expands again in such a way where knowledge is a process of change as much as change itself.
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 with the reacquisition of many fields such as logic, then decreased in the modern era where mass opinion, as partially understood or rather non-wholistic knowledge, replaced the individual wholistic view of existence under a viewpoint of multiple separate facts and phenomena.
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 expanding and contracting loops, and as such is mandated as subsequent to form itself. Remember, knowledge as being grounded in identity properties necessitates it being grounded in the first loop of P=P with this P=P existing in further and further variations as further looping 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 form is universal and mediates across all of being. The expanding and contracting loop is the inherent middle to all of being thus necessitating an underlying and absolute form.
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 of the horse and observer. Where the observer's distance expands the horse contracts from one form to another form until the form is a singular point. As space between phenomena expands so do the relative phenomena contract in relation to each other. As space between phenomena contracts so do the phenomena expand in relation to each other
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 as the connection of multiple concepts existing through equivocation as one.
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 convergence and divergence of points. Form is the great mediator of all being.
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. In simpler terms a dimension is a form composed of forms. Its definition exists through a recursion where form is continually repeated across its variations. The dimensions of the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own. For example, in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to a whole. However, empirically the form of a unicorn may only exist as a picture.
It is this tautology of forms, into dimensions, which show an underlying common ground, between the different dimensions of abstractness and empiricality, under the forms. These forms of forms, defined through a circularity, are evidenced through the “as-isness” of definition emerging through the linearism of the line, the circularity of circle and singularity of the point. In simpler terms in describing form, and the forms of form which are dimensions, a form is used thus necessitating the form as being axiomatic or rather self-evident for being strictly assumed “as-is”.
The dimension of empiricality is an isomorphism of abstractness given one sees with the empirical senses and the other through the mind's eye. One dimension is a recursion of the other through the forms which expand across them. For example the form of a horn replicates across both dimensions. However, one horn can be observed through the mind's eye and the other through the opposing yet symmetrical physical senses, one is an image through memory and another through the senses. The point of awareness, between that which is physical and that which is abstract, is grounded within isomorphism.
All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by the degrees of separation from the original point of origin. That which contains the greatest degree of truth is that which is closest to the source. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image. An image is an approximation where one point or form is observed through many points or forms. For example a triangle is the image of the point through multiple points and a horse is the image of the triangle through multiple triangles.
Imagination is thus the formation of images as an approximation of either some unactualized or non-observable phenomena. Imagination is the dimension of abstraction where diverging and converging points form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. It is a realm of possibility where “the one” is cut up and divided into further forms which approximate a greater unity under the premises of “what if x relates to y?” through a larger scope of observation. Imagination is thus a means of observation of the whole through parts which exist as normally separated. It is also the viewing of what may potentially occur in state where it currently unactualized.
A unicorn may exist as an empirical drawing in one dimension of existence and as a thought only in another dimension. One dimension exists outside of another, thus possibly imposing form onto the other. A unicorn as a thought imposes itself under a drawing, thus what is imaginary is that which is given image too. However, in these respects, the physical can be seen as imaginary given in such things as art are an approximation of a mental image. What is abstract may possibly be expressed by what is empirical and vice versa. Imagination is a process of imaging where one phenomena is approximated through another.
It is possibility, that which may exist, that is the state of actuality of one form in one dimension and its potentiality in another. Where a form may be actual under abstraction it is potentially existing empirically and vice-versa. One dimension supersedes the other in a timeline where one phenomena exists as a form in one dimension as prerequisite to a form in another dimension. Again a form such as a unicorn exists abstractly but may exist possibly through a drawing or genetic engineering. First it must exist within the timeline as part of mental observation then is progresses along the same timeline from something abstract into something physical. One dimension morphs into another through the isomorphism of the senses and the mind’s eye. What is possible is real as part of one dimension yet unactualized as part of another. Possible forms are manifested empirically through the projection of an abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension with the reverse holding true as well.
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 assumes the imprint of the actual. Under these respects the form of the skyscraper, existing an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, or in other words 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 of the empirical and the abstract. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image. This allows for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions of abstractness and empiricality where symmetrically opposite dimensions, one representing being in one respect and the other non-being of a phenomenon in another respect, synthesize.
As synthezible what exists as an abstraction exists as a real phenomenon in itself where a symbol, such as "A", or series of symbols, such as "A=A", exists as real due to an inherent form being given to it where form is the prerequisite to existence given it exists "as is". In simpler terms the ability of "A", or "A=A", to become physicalized as an actual symbol necessitates it as real. Dually the symbol of "A", or "A=A", as physical resulting in a mental form necessitates being real as well. What determines “realness” is the act of distinction where one phenomenon stands in contrast to another by its ability to morph from one phenomenon into another. A bird is viewed as real based upon its contrast with a tree, yet the curvature which composes both the bird and tree to exist is able to morph through a progression from one phenomenon into another. Contrasting phenomenon morph into the other phenomena through the curvature which allows for the contrast. However same curvature which separates the bird and the tree through a contrast is the same curvature which connects them given contrast is the cycling and maintenance of one phenomenon through another.
This morphing, as progressive change, is the foundation for what is real given it constitutes an “actual” state of being. Form is the guiding boundary of change which occurs through formlessness. In simpler terms where formlessness acts as the means of change, form acts as that which encapsulates the change and directs it.
This can be seen within the example of the loop where the boundaries encapsulate the inherent formlessness and this formlessness is directed under the inversion of one loop to many interior and exterior loops repeating through this emptiness. Another example can be that of the line where the line as composed of multiple lines is the line as containing the formless void through its continual repetition of lines. Formlessness is contained by form and form changes to another form through formlessness.
What exists as beyond both empirical and abstract knowledge is form and what exists, paradoxically, beyond form is formlessness. Change exists as beyond form itself considering its grounding in void which is beyond being as it is fundamentally nothing. Void is formlessness, formlessness is the absence of form, absence of form is the change of one form to another. It thus necessitates forms as the changing of change where each form exists as a boundary of change which inverts to another boundary of change. This is considering all forms contain at their center point void.
A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. This complexity is the multitude of points as the multitude of changes which occur within any given form. The form is thus the embodiment of change much in the same manner the loop is the embodiment of formlessness as the containment of void as the containment of the point. As to the points they 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. Another thing, a perspective for instance, may be the summation of multiple points of view revolving around a common assertion.
Just as the Big Bang of physics originates from a point self-negating into new points, and the Principle of Explosion originates from a contradictory point of view resulting in new points of view, so do forms originate from a single source. This source is the point and it is that which is absent of any form or volume, it can only be observed as the change of one phenomenon to another. Phenomenon composed of points are composed of change. An example of this would be the line or circle. The point observes the change of one line into another line or one circle into another.
Another example would be all phenomenon resulting in points. An object at a distance is reduced to a point. An object up close is reduced to points. The change in one position of a phenomenon to another results in the phenomenon expanding an contracting from a point. The expansion or contraction of a phenomenon is reduced to (a) point(s) where the point is the median of change from one phenomenon to another.
The absence of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points. This can be reflected as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field. 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. This point is intrinsically empty through the point of view, of the observer's assumptive capacity, in which reality is imprinted. It is also intrinsically empty of volume, thus form, empirically. Now if this formless abyss divides through a self-negation into a line between two points or a circle, as multiple lines between points. This occurs as the division of the point. Formlessness self-negates, through double negation, into form. The point negates itself into form, yet the point in itself is fundamentally nothing.
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 as synonymous to the particle wave dualism. On one hand the point is formless, when observed in a singular state. On the other hand, it allows for form when observed in multiple states. Singularity results in formlessness. Multiplicity results in form. This point represents the origin of both the empirical point particle of physics and the point of view of all logical assertions.
It is this self-negation of the point which results from this nature as a single point and boundless field. This self-negation results in the recursion of the point, be it abstract point of view or empirical particle. Considering all is asserted from Nothingness this self-negation, where formlessness results in form and one form results in many, applies to the nature of assumption as well considering all is assumed. One assumption results in another and is maintain as an assertion, amidst the multiple assertions, due to this underlying nature of assertion.
All knowledge, as grounded in imprinting under the nature of assumption, is grounded within a point 0 and this point 0 divides itself into form much in the same manner where a point divides into a singular line or singular circle which represents the quantity of “1”.
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. All empirical and abstract being results from a circular doubling.
This circularity occurs further as the assertion breaks down into multiple assertions and resynthesizes into a single assertion. This takes the nature of a pulse. Knowledge expands then contracts then re-expands again in such a way where knowledge is a process of change as much as change itself.
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 with the reacquisition of many fields such as logic, then decreased in the modern era where mass opinion, as partially understood or rather non-wholistic knowledge, replaced the individual wholistic view of existence under a viewpoint of multiple separate facts and phenomena.
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 expanding and contracting loops, and as such is mandated as subsequent to form itself. Remember, knowledge as being grounded in identity properties necessitates it being grounded in the first loop of P=P with this P=P existing in further and further variations as further looping 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 form is universal and mediates across all of being. The expanding and contracting loop is the inherent middle to all of being thus necessitating an underlying and absolute form.
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 of the horse and observer. Where the observer's distance expands the horse contracts from one form to another form until the form is a singular point. As space between phenomena expands so do the relative phenomena contract in relation to each other. As space between phenomena contracts so do the phenomena expand in relation to each other
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 as the connection of multiple concepts existing through equivocation as one.
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 convergence and divergence of points. Form is the great mediator of all being.
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. In simpler terms a dimension is a form composed of forms. Its definition exists through a recursion where form is continually repeated across its variations. The dimensions of the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own. For example, in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to a whole. However, empirically the form of a unicorn may only exist as a picture.
It is this tautology of forms, into dimensions, which show an underlying common ground, between the different dimensions of abstractness and empiricality, under the forms. These forms of forms, defined through a circularity, are evidenced through the “as-isness” of definition emerging through the linearism of the line, the circularity of circle and singularity of the point. In simpler terms in describing form, and the forms of form which are dimensions, a form is used thus necessitating the form as being axiomatic or rather self-evident for being strictly assumed “as-is”.
The dimension of empiricality is an isomorphism of abstractness given one sees with the empirical senses and the other through the mind's eye. One dimension is a recursion of the other through the forms which expand across them. For example the form of a horn replicates across both dimensions. However, one horn can be observed through the mind's eye and the other through the opposing yet symmetrical physical senses, one is an image through memory and another through the senses. The point of awareness, between that which is physical and that which is abstract, is grounded within isomorphism.
All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by the degrees of separation from the original point of origin. That which contains the greatest degree of truth is that which is closest to the source. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image. An image is an approximation where one point or form is observed through many points or forms. For example a triangle is the image of the point through multiple points and a horse is the image of the triangle through multiple triangles.
Imagination is thus the formation of images as an approximation of either some unactualized or non-observable phenomena. Imagination is the dimension of abstraction where diverging and converging points form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. It is a realm of possibility where “the one” is cut up and divided into further forms which approximate a greater unity under the premises of “what if x relates to y?” through a larger scope of observation. Imagination is thus a means of observation of the whole through parts which exist as normally separated. It is also the viewing of what may potentially occur in state where it currently unactualized.
A unicorn may exist as an empirical drawing in one dimension of existence and as a thought only in another dimension. One dimension exists outside of another, thus possibly imposing form onto the other. A unicorn as a thought imposes itself under a drawing, thus what is imaginary is that which is given image too. However, in these respects, the physical can be seen as imaginary given in such things as art are an approximation of a mental image. What is abstract may possibly be expressed by what is empirical and vice versa. Imagination is a process of imaging where one phenomena is approximated through another.
It is possibility, that which may exist, that is the state of actuality of one form in one dimension and its potentiality in another. Where a form may be actual under abstraction it is potentially existing empirically and vice-versa. One dimension supersedes the other in a timeline where one phenomena exists as a form in one dimension as prerequisite to a form in another dimension. Again a form such as a unicorn exists abstractly but may exist possibly through a drawing or genetic engineering. First it must exist within the timeline as part of mental observation then is progresses along the same timeline from something abstract into something physical. One dimension morphs into another through the isomorphism of the senses and the mind’s eye. What is possible is real as part of one dimension yet unactualized as part of another. Possible forms are manifested empirically through the projection of an abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension with the reverse holding true as well.
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 assumes the imprint of the actual. Under these respects the form of the skyscraper, existing an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, or in other words 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 of the empirical and the abstract. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image. This allows for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions of abstractness and empiricality where symmetrically opposite dimensions, one representing being in one respect and the other non-being of a phenomenon in another respect, synthesize.
As synthezible what exists as an abstraction exists as a real phenomenon in itself where a symbol, such as "A", or series of symbols, such as "A=A", exists as real due to an inherent form being given to it where form is the prerequisite to existence given it exists "as is". In simpler terms the ability of "A", or "A=A", to become physicalized as an actual symbol necessitates it as real. Dually the symbol of "A", or "A=A", as physical resulting in a mental form necessitates being real as well. What determines “realness” is the act of distinction where one phenomenon stands in contrast to another by its ability to morph from one phenomenon into another. A bird is viewed as real based upon its contrast with a tree, yet the curvature which composes both the bird and tree to exist is able to morph through a progression from one phenomenon into another. Contrasting phenomenon morph into the other phenomena through the curvature which allows for the contrast. However same curvature which separates the bird and the tree through a contrast is the same curvature which connects them given contrast is the cycling and maintenance of one phenomenon through another.
This morphing, as progressive change, is the foundation for what is real given it constitutes an “actual” state of being. Form is the guiding boundary of change which occurs through formlessness. In simpler terms where formlessness acts as the means of change, form acts as that which encapsulates the change and directs it.
This can be seen within the example of the loop where the boundaries encapsulate the inherent formlessness and this formlessness is directed under the inversion of one loop to many interior and exterior loops repeating through this emptiness. Another example can be that of the line where the line as composed of multiple lines is the line as containing the formless void through its continual repetition of lines. Formlessness is contained by form and form changes to another form through formlessness.
Re: Loops and Void
XI
To reiterate, the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion are both isomorphisms of each other 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 set of axioms self-contradicting into the variety of assumptions, all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed set of axioms that self-negates into many. For example:
1. All lemons are yellow = true
2. All lemons are not yellow = true
3. All lemons are shades of yellow thus contain elements which are not yellow. A multitude of other colors, as not yellow, occur resulting in an infinite variety.
Two simultaneously different yet true statements can occur simultaneously, resulting in an infinite number of conclusions all of which are valid. Two contradictory true premises are observed and a true conclusion results.
Dually this may be observed in reverse where the single axiom as “lemons are shades of yellow” negates into the opposing axioms of “lemons are yellow” and “lemons are not yellow”.
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 phenomenon of form. 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 where 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.
This sequence can be proven through basic geometry. Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0d points into the number line:
(0→ 0)→(1,-1)
**** 1= .______. →
**** -1= ← .______.
(1→ 1)→ (1,2,1/2)
*** 1 lines and 2 lines= .____.____. →
*** 1 line and ½ line = .____. →
(-1→ -1)→ (-1,-2,-1/2)
*** -1 line and -2 lines ← .____.____.
***-1 line and -1/2 line ← .____.
(1→ 2)→ (1,3,1/3)
*** 1 line and 3 lines .____.____.____. →
***1 line and 1/3 line .____. →
(-1→ -2)→ (-1,-3,-1/3)
***-1 line and -3 lines ← .____.____.____.
***-1 line and -1/3 line ← .____.
The line starts with point 0. This point zero projects to form the most basic quantifiable form: the line as 1 unit and -1 unit respectively (considering the line relativistically projects in both directions as one direction. The projection of 1 is the projection of -1 considering the line is relative in directions considering the angle of awareness must be taken into account).
As the point projects again -2 and 2 results where -1/2 and 1/2 occurs simultaneously (this is considering 2 lines necessitates each line as 1/2 the original line yet are distinct lines in themselves).
The sequence continues as the line projects to another point as 3 and -3 and 1/3 and -1/3. Each line as composed of a series of lines is a singular line in itself. For each projection of the point comes a projection of another line thus resulting in the number line as the projection of a point 0. All numbers, as x=x, originate with the projection of point 0 to another point 0 as (0→ 0) and (0 ← 0) as (0↔0) or (0=0). The number line originates with 0 with this 0 being the equivalent of formlessness and all subsequent numbers as form through the line.
The formlessness of formlessness results in form. One zero-dimensional point negates into multiple zero-dimensional points as the result of form occurring. The formlessness of form, where form is divided by what is formless, results in forms. One line is divided into another line through the application of a zero-dimensional point. This formlessness, from which all phenomenon originate, is the same endpoint as beginning point:
1. A line progresses from point A to point B.
2. This line is composed of fractal lines.
3. These fractal lines are whole numbers in themselves.
4. The progression of fractals can be observed as 1/2, to 1/3, to 1/4, etc. Each of these numbers, as an individual line or set of lines, are whole numbers in themselves. 1/2 is 2, 1/3 is 3, 1/4 is 4, etc. Each set of numbers, as a set of lines, is in itself a singular line, thus 2,3,4, etc. and ½, 1/3, ¼, etc. are all equatable to 1 as one line which is composed of and composes further lines.
5. As the line is divided continually each line (or line segment) moves to point 0. As whole numbers progress they move from and towards point 0 as the beginning and end points.
.______.
.___.___.
.__.__.__.
._._._._._.
............ = ._______.
6. Each new line segment is a line in itself, and as a new line segment follows the same nature as the original line. 2 progresses to 0. 3 progresses to 0. 4 progresses to 0. Etc. The whole number line, as well as the fractional lines, ends and begins with zero.
7. This occurs through one line where one is cycling through zero into multiple states. A point projected to another point results in the point repeating itself through a new line. Each line as stemming from a 0d point results in a projection back to the original point, given all points are the same, thus it is directed to a new line where the beginning point is the end point and the end point is the beginning point.
8. With the increase of numbers is an increase in fractions/fractals of 1., thus as 1 increases so do the fractions/fractals, thus necessitating 1, in its continual expansion, approaching 0. This can be seen under the example of the number line: as the number line progresses each number results in a line which is a fractal of the original. Each whole number is a fraction/fractal of the original. Thus with the progression of whole numbers is a progression of fractions/fractals where as the number line progresses so do the fractals. The whole numbers as fractals approach zero.
Logically this sequence occurs from an emptiness of assumption resulting in variables, which are assumed, considering assumption of assumption results in form. The observation of a formlessness through a formlessness negates into a form of the “I”, given the “I’s” assumptive nature as being formless, much in the same manner a formless dot negates into another formless dot thus resulting in the form of a line. This sequence thus mirrors its mathematical counterpart:
(• → •)→(A,-A)
(A→A)→ (A,B,A/B)
(A→B)→ (A,C,A/C)
(-A→-A)→(-A,-A/B,A/-B,-B)
Empirically this sequence occurs as:
"Nothing" therefore "Nothing" therefore "Cat" and "non-cat" (nothing negates itself into all variables as "non-A", which in this case is "non-cat", and the variable of A which can be just about anything else, which in this case is "cat")
(• → •)→(A,-A)
"Cat" therefore "Cat"
(A→A)
“Cat” therefore “Cat” therefore “Cat”
(A→A)→A
“Cat” therefore “Cat” therefore “Tiger”
(A→A)→B
“Cat” therefore “Cat” therefore “Tiger” as Fraction of “Cat”
(A-→A)→A/B
"Cat" therefore “Tiger"
(A→B)
“Cat” therefore “Tiger” therefore “Cat”
(A→B)→A
"Cat" therefore "Tiger" therefore "Bengal"
(A→B)→C
"Cat" therefore "Tiger" therefore "Bengal” as fraction of cat”
(A→B)→A/C
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat”
(-A→-A)→-A
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “Bengal as fraction of “non Cat”
(-A→-A)→ -A/B
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “not Bengal” as fraction of “Cat”
(-A→-A)→ A/-B
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “Not Bengal”
(-A→-A) → -B
This sequence results in being as composed of fractions and fractals where a modality is extension of the assertion it seeks to describe. The modality is part of the assertion. This reflects in all words used to describe said assertions. Words as tautologies are words as fractions considering they act as parts which are descriptive of the original assertions.
For example:
___________measurement____________
(quality)→ (state)→ (index)→ (.......)
Where "measurement" is the base underlying word that grounds all sub definitions under it. Each sub definition is a part of "measurement". "Measurement" represents the inherent middle term that reflects through the tautology.
This void sequence occurs through the process of doubling, as a process of cycling which results in the phenomenon as a contextual loop. This is considering the void "•" and point "0" result in all variables through a self-negation where this self-negation occurs through a self referentiality. Nothing self-referencing itself is equivalent to stating “the change of change” or “the formlessness of formlessness” where said change or formlessness results in an absence of change as a form. This is a contradiction in form and function thus necessitating being itself as grounded in contradiction.
Another example of doubling, in this case double negation, is the inconsistency of inconsistency results in consistency. Being self-references, through a tautology, into a newer form where A→A is the beginning of a progressive tautology, or rather technically void voids itself into being where being is the act of void self-referencing itself. Considering there is only being, there is no-nothingness, yet this no-nothingness is a self-negating cycle which results in the circular form as being the grounding of being. Non-Being results in being and being results into multiple beings through non-being.
This doubling is a cyclical form of reasoning which results in a variation of the original premise asserted:
To reiterate, the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion are both isomorphisms of each other 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 set of axioms self-contradicting into the variety of assumptions, all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed set of axioms that self-negates into many. For example:
1. All lemons are yellow = true
2. All lemons are not yellow = true
3. All lemons are shades of yellow thus contain elements which are not yellow. A multitude of other colors, as not yellow, occur resulting in an infinite variety.
Two simultaneously different yet true statements can occur simultaneously, resulting in an infinite number of conclusions all of which are valid. Two contradictory true premises are observed and a true conclusion results.
Dually this may be observed in reverse where the single axiom as “lemons are shades of yellow” negates into the opposing axioms of “lemons are yellow” and “lemons are not yellow”.
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 phenomenon of form. 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 where 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.
This sequence can be proven through basic geometry. Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0d points into the number line:
(0→ 0)→(1,-1)
**** 1= .______. →
**** -1= ← .______.
(1→ 1)→ (1,2,1/2)
*** 1 lines and 2 lines= .____.____. →
*** 1 line and ½ line = .____. →
(-1→ -1)→ (-1,-2,-1/2)
*** -1 line and -2 lines ← .____.____.
***-1 line and -1/2 line ← .____.
(1→ 2)→ (1,3,1/3)
*** 1 line and 3 lines .____.____.____. →
***1 line and 1/3 line .____. →
(-1→ -2)→ (-1,-3,-1/3)
***-1 line and -3 lines ← .____.____.____.
***-1 line and -1/3 line ← .____.
The line starts with point 0. This point zero projects to form the most basic quantifiable form: the line as 1 unit and -1 unit respectively (considering the line relativistically projects in both directions as one direction. The projection of 1 is the projection of -1 considering the line is relative in directions considering the angle of awareness must be taken into account).
As the point projects again -2 and 2 results where -1/2 and 1/2 occurs simultaneously (this is considering 2 lines necessitates each line as 1/2 the original line yet are distinct lines in themselves).
The sequence continues as the line projects to another point as 3 and -3 and 1/3 and -1/3. Each line as composed of a series of lines is a singular line in itself. For each projection of the point comes a projection of another line thus resulting in the number line as the projection of a point 0. All numbers, as x=x, originate with the projection of point 0 to another point 0 as (0→ 0) and (0 ← 0) as (0↔0) or (0=0). The number line originates with 0 with this 0 being the equivalent of formlessness and all subsequent numbers as form through the line.
The formlessness of formlessness results in form. One zero-dimensional point negates into multiple zero-dimensional points as the result of form occurring. The formlessness of form, where form is divided by what is formless, results in forms. One line is divided into another line through the application of a zero-dimensional point. This formlessness, from which all phenomenon originate, is the same endpoint as beginning point:
1. A line progresses from point A to point B.
2. This line is composed of fractal lines.
3. These fractal lines are whole numbers in themselves.
4. The progression of fractals can be observed as 1/2, to 1/3, to 1/4, etc. Each of these numbers, as an individual line or set of lines, are whole numbers in themselves. 1/2 is 2, 1/3 is 3, 1/4 is 4, etc. Each set of numbers, as a set of lines, is in itself a singular line, thus 2,3,4, etc. and ½, 1/3, ¼, etc. are all equatable to 1 as one line which is composed of and composes further lines.
5. As the line is divided continually each line (or line segment) moves to point 0. As whole numbers progress they move from and towards point 0 as the beginning and end points.
.______.
.___.___.
.__.__.__.
._._._._._.
............ = ._______.
6. Each new line segment is a line in itself, and as a new line segment follows the same nature as the original line. 2 progresses to 0. 3 progresses to 0. 4 progresses to 0. Etc. The whole number line, as well as the fractional lines, ends and begins with zero.
7. This occurs through one line where one is cycling through zero into multiple states. A point projected to another point results in the point repeating itself through a new line. Each line as stemming from a 0d point results in a projection back to the original point, given all points are the same, thus it is directed to a new line where the beginning point is the end point and the end point is the beginning point.
8. With the increase of numbers is an increase in fractions/fractals of 1., thus as 1 increases so do the fractions/fractals, thus necessitating 1, in its continual expansion, approaching 0. This can be seen under the example of the number line: as the number line progresses each number results in a line which is a fractal of the original. Each whole number is a fraction/fractal of the original. Thus with the progression of whole numbers is a progression of fractions/fractals where as the number line progresses so do the fractals. The whole numbers as fractals approach zero.
Logically this sequence occurs from an emptiness of assumption resulting in variables, which are assumed, considering assumption of assumption results in form. The observation of a formlessness through a formlessness negates into a form of the “I”, given the “I’s” assumptive nature as being formless, much in the same manner a formless dot negates into another formless dot thus resulting in the form of a line. This sequence thus mirrors its mathematical counterpart:
(• → •)→(A,-A)
(A→A)→ (A,B,A/B)
(A→B)→ (A,C,A/C)
(-A→-A)→(-A,-A/B,A/-B,-B)
Empirically this sequence occurs as:
"Nothing" therefore "Nothing" therefore "Cat" and "non-cat" (nothing negates itself into all variables as "non-A", which in this case is "non-cat", and the variable of A which can be just about anything else, which in this case is "cat")
(• → •)→(A,-A)
"Cat" therefore "Cat"
(A→A)
“Cat” therefore “Cat” therefore “Cat”
(A→A)→A
“Cat” therefore “Cat” therefore “Tiger”
(A→A)→B
“Cat” therefore “Cat” therefore “Tiger” as Fraction of “Cat”
(A-→A)→A/B
"Cat" therefore “Tiger"
(A→B)
“Cat” therefore “Tiger” therefore “Cat”
(A→B)→A
"Cat" therefore "Tiger" therefore "Bengal"
(A→B)→C
"Cat" therefore "Tiger" therefore "Bengal” as fraction of cat”
(A→B)→A/C
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat”
(-A→-A)→-A
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “Bengal as fraction of “non Cat”
(-A→-A)→ -A/B
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “not Bengal” as fraction of “Cat”
(-A→-A)→ A/-B
“Not Cat” therefore “Not Cat” therefore “Not Bengal”
(-A→-A) → -B
This sequence results in being as composed of fractions and fractals where a modality is extension of the assertion it seeks to describe. The modality is part of the assertion. This reflects in all words used to describe said assertions. Words as tautologies are words as fractions considering they act as parts which are descriptive of the original assertions.
For example:
___________measurement____________
(quality)→ (state)→ (index)→ (.......)
Where "measurement" is the base underlying word that grounds all sub definitions under it. Each sub definition is a part of "measurement". "Measurement" represents the inherent middle term that reflects through the tautology.
This void sequence occurs through the process of doubling, as a process of cycling which results in the phenomenon as a contextual loop. This is considering the void "•" and point "0" result in all variables through a self-negation where this self-negation occurs through a self referentiality. Nothing self-referencing itself is equivalent to stating “the change of change” or “the formlessness of formlessness” where said change or formlessness results in an absence of change as a form. This is a contradiction in form and function thus necessitating being itself as grounded in contradiction.
Another example of doubling, in this case double negation, is the inconsistency of inconsistency results in consistency. Being self-references, through a tautology, into a newer form where A→A is the beginning of a progressive tautology, or rather technically void voids itself into being where being is the act of void self-referencing itself. Considering there is only being, there is no-nothingness, yet this no-nothingness is a self-negating cycle which results in the circular form as being the grounding of being. Non-Being results in being and being results into multiple beings through non-being.
This doubling is a cyclical form of reasoning which results in a variation of the original premise asserted:
Re: Loops and Void
XII
1. The doubling of positives results in a negative as a form of gradation occurs. For example, the "reddest red" necessitates there being grades of red where one red is less than another, a deficiency in red occurs.
2. The doubling of negatives results in a positive as a negation of negation occurs. For example, the "non-non red" necessitates non red as self-negated into red, a positive state (being) occurs.
3. The doubling of a phenomenon results in its thetical or antithetical element. Double positives results in its antithetical negative, double negatives results in a thetical positive.
4. The doubling of nothing, as voiding of void, results in all variables both thetical and antithetical, positive and negative.
The doubling of an actual phenomenon is the simultaneous halving of one phenomenon into two where a thetical or antithetical state results isomorphically to the original phenomena. With doubling of a thesis or antithesis comes the corresponding antithesis or thesis. With the doubling of void comes being where being comes from nothing and is the action of void negating itself. Being is void self-negated considering only being exists and nothingness is not a thing in and of itself but rather a process of change. To change a process of change is to put an end to that change under a static form.
This isomorphism, or the changing of one phenomenon to its opposing symmetrical state, necessitates that in the process of doubling a process of halving occurs. Before there was one phenomenon, then the phenomena is halved into two phenomena as the opposing thetical or antithetical state, resulting in two phenomena where each is half of a synthetic whole. Void in this case, as a phenomenon, can be equivocated to the act of change.
Halving and doubling occur simultaneously where this process necessitates a change in the corresponding synthetic whole. The process of doubling and halving is a process of change, this change is the definition and redefinition of the triadic synthetic portion of the phenomenon where this portion is both thetical and antithetical phenomena that exist as one. The thesis and antithesis result in a synthesis, this synthesis results in a thesis and antithesis. This change necessitates all phenomena, as synthetic, as dynamic in nature. Doubling and halving, as simultaneous, are the origins of the process of change.
This change results in a spiral or as a series of successive loops. This starts as the cycling of the phenomena, through the doubling, and results in an off branching thesis or antithesis. This thesis or antithesis negates, through further doubling into a further thesis or antithesis. For example, the "reddest red" results into a newer color through gradation, as not red, such as "blue". This is considering the reddest red necessitates grades of red with these grades showing the quality of an absence of red under “not red“. One red as greater than another red, necessitates one red as less than another with this less being an absence of red under another color. This in turn results in the "bluest blue" which in turn negates to another color through gradation under “not blue”, such as "yellow".
Another example, keeping doubling of negatives in mind, is the "voiding of void". Void negates itself into being. This being in turn is voided into grades of being. The "greatest being of being" necessitates grades of being, as evidenced in the double positives observed above, but also necessitates a continuum where being is voided into further being. The gradation of being results in a antithetical "deficiency of being", as grades of beings, which is negated through the "deficiency of deficient being", in turn cycles back to "being" itself. In each of these ways the phenomena as cycling, through the doubling process, is recycled to its source while manifesting itself in a newer variation. Being progresses in definition through a spiral.
This spiral begins with void, thus necessitating creation ex nihilio. Void acts as a mirror where being progressively repeats through it. The voiding of void necessitates Nothingness negating itself into being. Repetition is derived from nothing. This Nothingness, as not a thing in itself, self-negates as it does not exist. Self-negation is the beginning of the mirroring process. The voiding of void, as being, necessitates all forms as replicating across nothingness. For example a particle in a vacuum, moving from point A to point B, observes a particle as replicating from one position into another as multiple particles considering each position of the particle is the same particle in a new state thus a variation of itself. This replication is the mirroring of the particle considering, the particle in position A is a mirror image of the particle in position B.
Dually a thought moving to another thought, through the empty state of the mind, observes one form replicate into another. Form A repeats itself under a new variation as form B; this can be observed under the morphing of a thought about a horse change into a unicorn, certain key characteristics (such as the legs and head of the horse) repeat into a newer form. The gap between one mental image and another, through absence of memory, is voidness as the change of one form into another through formlessness. These repetitions of memory contain the voidness of thought, or absence of form through a mirroring process, where formlessness is encapsulated under a form. This encapsulation is the self-negation of nothing as not a thing in itself but rather the embodiment of change through a form. Change negated results in a form and this form is the means of change from one change, embodied through form, into another change, embodied again through form. This occurs through its intrinsic emptiness.
Void is the common median across all empirical and abstract being as void is not a thing in itself but an observation of change. This change occurs be it a priori or a posteriori given that formlessness transcends being as it is not a thing in itself thus not subject to "thing-ness". This median, that of change, is one thing existing in many states, where multiplicity is a mask which approximates the One given the One cannot be observed in its totality except through parts. If the unity of being mirrors void, it is mirroring nothing. If it mirrors nothing, and the existence of being occurs through mirroring (repetition), then being is negated. This unified existence results in multiple existences considering being cannot be negated as only being exists. The negation of a singular unified being is multiple beings, this multiplicity is the manifestation of the one as infinite.
This negation of singularity to multiplicity, as infinite, can be seen under the example of the circle. The concept of the circle continually repreats across multiple observers thereby making the perfect circle as infinite. It is the continual repetition of a phenomenon which makes it infinite. For example a continually progressive function of the number line necessitates 1 existing in perpetual variation given each number is the number one repeating itself. Under this number line progresses 1 exists as perpetually changing thus 1 is repeating in newer and newer variations through the numbers which follow from it.
1 as perpetually changing is 1 as an action or exhibition of movement. 1 as a continual action is 1 as infinite. Infinity is perpetual change as action and can never be observed in its totality except through the source which repeats itself under a newer and newer variation. Infinity can be observed in the number 1, or through the line as a distance between points, given 1 is infinite through perpetual change, or the line is manifested through further lines. Infinity thus can be observed through the finite where the finite is the point of change from one phenomenon to another. Each finite object is infinite through its continual change, with this change from one finite phenomenon to another being multiple infinities. The change of one phenomenon to another is a continuous cycle of said phenomenon through itself with this continuous cycle observing an inherent form, that of the circle, circling itself perpetually. All being exists through an infinite cycle which contains further cycles as a cycle in itself.
This cycle can be represented as the One given one cycle is connected to another cycle through the continual manifestation of the cycle (circle). If all is one then all is connected, this means even the most obscure phenomena are connected to further obscure phenomena. Under these terms a form of universal equivocation occurs where all is a variation of a common source. This variation occurs through the mirroring of void as the absence of a phenomenon mirroring itself. However nothing cannot be proven.
To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing as including the proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for “nothing” nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing. Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. In simpler terms axioms are taken on nothing given no thought is evidence behind the axiom for it is taken strictly “as is” without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic. This axiomatic nature can neither be proven nor disproven. The nothingness behind the axiom, or existence for that matter, can only be proven in stating only the axiom, or existence, exists. Nothingness cannot be generated as it would be generating nothing thus no generation therefore nothing.
1. The doubling of positives results in a negative as a form of gradation occurs. For example, the "reddest red" necessitates there being grades of red where one red is less than another, a deficiency in red occurs.
2. The doubling of negatives results in a positive as a negation of negation occurs. For example, the "non-non red" necessitates non red as self-negated into red, a positive state (being) occurs.
3. The doubling of a phenomenon results in its thetical or antithetical element. Double positives results in its antithetical negative, double negatives results in a thetical positive.
4. The doubling of nothing, as voiding of void, results in all variables both thetical and antithetical, positive and negative.
The doubling of an actual phenomenon is the simultaneous halving of one phenomenon into two where a thetical or antithetical state results isomorphically to the original phenomena. With doubling of a thesis or antithesis comes the corresponding antithesis or thesis. With the doubling of void comes being where being comes from nothing and is the action of void negating itself. Being is void self-negated considering only being exists and nothingness is not a thing in and of itself but rather a process of change. To change a process of change is to put an end to that change under a static form.
This isomorphism, or the changing of one phenomenon to its opposing symmetrical state, necessitates that in the process of doubling a process of halving occurs. Before there was one phenomenon, then the phenomena is halved into two phenomena as the opposing thetical or antithetical state, resulting in two phenomena where each is half of a synthetic whole. Void in this case, as a phenomenon, can be equivocated to the act of change.
Halving and doubling occur simultaneously where this process necessitates a change in the corresponding synthetic whole. The process of doubling and halving is a process of change, this change is the definition and redefinition of the triadic synthetic portion of the phenomenon where this portion is both thetical and antithetical phenomena that exist as one. The thesis and antithesis result in a synthesis, this synthesis results in a thesis and antithesis. This change necessitates all phenomena, as synthetic, as dynamic in nature. Doubling and halving, as simultaneous, are the origins of the process of change.
This change results in a spiral or as a series of successive loops. This starts as the cycling of the phenomena, through the doubling, and results in an off branching thesis or antithesis. This thesis or antithesis negates, through further doubling into a further thesis or antithesis. For example, the "reddest red" results into a newer color through gradation, as not red, such as "blue". This is considering the reddest red necessitates grades of red with these grades showing the quality of an absence of red under “not red“. One red as greater than another red, necessitates one red as less than another with this less being an absence of red under another color. This in turn results in the "bluest blue" which in turn negates to another color through gradation under “not blue”, such as "yellow".
Another example, keeping doubling of negatives in mind, is the "voiding of void". Void negates itself into being. This being in turn is voided into grades of being. The "greatest being of being" necessitates grades of being, as evidenced in the double positives observed above, but also necessitates a continuum where being is voided into further being. The gradation of being results in a antithetical "deficiency of being", as grades of beings, which is negated through the "deficiency of deficient being", in turn cycles back to "being" itself. In each of these ways the phenomena as cycling, through the doubling process, is recycled to its source while manifesting itself in a newer variation. Being progresses in definition through a spiral.
This spiral begins with void, thus necessitating creation ex nihilio. Void acts as a mirror where being progressively repeats through it. The voiding of void necessitates Nothingness negating itself into being. Repetition is derived from nothing. This Nothingness, as not a thing in itself, self-negates as it does not exist. Self-negation is the beginning of the mirroring process. The voiding of void, as being, necessitates all forms as replicating across nothingness. For example a particle in a vacuum, moving from point A to point B, observes a particle as replicating from one position into another as multiple particles considering each position of the particle is the same particle in a new state thus a variation of itself. This replication is the mirroring of the particle considering, the particle in position A is a mirror image of the particle in position B.
Dually a thought moving to another thought, through the empty state of the mind, observes one form replicate into another. Form A repeats itself under a new variation as form B; this can be observed under the morphing of a thought about a horse change into a unicorn, certain key characteristics (such as the legs and head of the horse) repeat into a newer form. The gap between one mental image and another, through absence of memory, is voidness as the change of one form into another through formlessness. These repetitions of memory contain the voidness of thought, or absence of form through a mirroring process, where formlessness is encapsulated under a form. This encapsulation is the self-negation of nothing as not a thing in itself but rather the embodiment of change through a form. Change negated results in a form and this form is the means of change from one change, embodied through form, into another change, embodied again through form. This occurs through its intrinsic emptiness.
Void is the common median across all empirical and abstract being as void is not a thing in itself but an observation of change. This change occurs be it a priori or a posteriori given that formlessness transcends being as it is not a thing in itself thus not subject to "thing-ness". This median, that of change, is one thing existing in many states, where multiplicity is a mask which approximates the One given the One cannot be observed in its totality except through parts. If the unity of being mirrors void, it is mirroring nothing. If it mirrors nothing, and the existence of being occurs through mirroring (repetition), then being is negated. This unified existence results in multiple existences considering being cannot be negated as only being exists. The negation of a singular unified being is multiple beings, this multiplicity is the manifestation of the one as infinite.
This negation of singularity to multiplicity, as infinite, can be seen under the example of the circle. The concept of the circle continually repreats across multiple observers thereby making the perfect circle as infinite. It is the continual repetition of a phenomenon which makes it infinite. For example a continually progressive function of the number line necessitates 1 existing in perpetual variation given each number is the number one repeating itself. Under this number line progresses 1 exists as perpetually changing thus 1 is repeating in newer and newer variations through the numbers which follow from it.
1 as perpetually changing is 1 as an action or exhibition of movement. 1 as a continual action is 1 as infinite. Infinity is perpetual change as action and can never be observed in its totality except through the source which repeats itself under a newer and newer variation. Infinity can be observed in the number 1, or through the line as a distance between points, given 1 is infinite through perpetual change, or the line is manifested through further lines. Infinity thus can be observed through the finite where the finite is the point of change from one phenomenon to another. Each finite object is infinite through its continual change, with this change from one finite phenomenon to another being multiple infinities. The change of one phenomenon to another is a continuous cycle of said phenomenon through itself with this continuous cycle observing an inherent form, that of the circle, circling itself perpetually. All being exists through an infinite cycle which contains further cycles as a cycle in itself.
This cycle can be represented as the One given one cycle is connected to another cycle through the continual manifestation of the cycle (circle). If all is one then all is connected, this means even the most obscure phenomena are connected to further obscure phenomena. Under these terms a form of universal equivocation occurs where all is a variation of a common source. This variation occurs through the mirroring of void as the absence of a phenomenon mirroring itself. However nothing cannot be proven.
To prove nothing is to prove nothing at all thus no proof exists. The absence of proof for nothing is necessitated by the nature of nothing as including the proof as fundamentally nothing. Considering there is no proof for “nothing” nothing cannot be disproven either given an absence of proof for nothing is in itself nothing. Nothing can neither be proven nor disproven but rather taken axiomatically as this axiomatic nature reflects the same absence of form in which a form impresses itself upon. In simpler terms axioms are taken on nothing given no thought is evidence behind the axiom for it is taken strictly “as is” without anything behind it. The axiom is rooted in nothing thus nothing is axiomatic. This axiomatic nature can neither be proven nor disproven. The nothingness behind the axiom, or existence for that matter, can only be proven in stating only the axiom, or existence, exists. Nothingness cannot be generated as it would be generating nothing thus no generation therefore nothing.
Re: Loops and Void
XIII
Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion and how being manifests from nothing, 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. This transcendence 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. This absence of thought is the empty space through which the line is imprinted.
The form of the line imprints on the empty backdrop of the mind. It is the absence of thought which leaves an inherently formless state within the nature of thought. We assume through an intrinsic emptiness, this emptiness is imprinted by forms where the imprintation of form is the replication of form.
The same nature of empty space, as perceived through the senses, observes that which is without form imprinted by being. For example, formless sand takes 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, this is considering formlessness ranges across all the senses as a prerequisite to them. Space is the universal axiom that cannot be doubted as to doubt leaves a perceivable sense of emptiness in meaning…and we cycle back to the original premise again as we are left describing space under spatial terms, in this case the term “emptiness”.
All counting is grounded in space, where number and form are inseparable as all numbers are entities for quantifying forms which are composed of a spatial nature. The simplest quantifiable form is that of the line and the act of quantification is inseparable from the forms which compose it. These forms are spatial. All logic is grounded in forms, spatial constructs, as the variables are connected to empirical qualities or time itself which is composed of interplaying forms.
All math/logic are inseparable from forms as the symbols which are attached to the forms (being it 1 orange or A= horse) in turn follow a “formality”…this sounds like a pun but it is not. A form of reasoning is what justifies math and logic. This form of reasoning is grounded in assumed points of reference that follow a linear form. One symbol progresses to another with the progression of the symbols showing how they connected. One symbol goes to many. Dually the repetition of forms through a new state observes a circular self-referentiality.
Logic and math have an inherent underlying spatial form which lies underneath their nature simply by observing their tautological nature as the repetition of each respective phenomenon through a new form. We see this in any logical argument where the premises results in a new form under the conclusion with the conclusion being the premises in a new form. A and B resulting in C is A and B repeating in a new form. The number line, the foundation for counting and hence the foundation for proof, is not only pure form as space but shows how the numbers themselves exist in a progressively self-referencing manner where all numbers are variations of 1 with each number being a variation of further numbers founded upon 1. 1 is a variation of 0 through 0 self-negating into 1, much in the same manner a point negates into another point and then into a line. We see this further in the beginning of a line being founded upon 0 then resulting into 1 line then 2 lines then 3 lines, so on and so forth, then ending again in 0 as the ending point. This negation of one form into another tautological form is a spiral through a progressive self referentiality; the cycling of the premises into the conclusion is a self-referentiality while with the number line the cycling of the point, as 0, results in the progression of the line into further lines, numbers into further numbers, through the aforementioned progressive self-referencing as repetition.
Rationality occurs through a spiral, the spiral is a form, this form is spatial in nature, thus all of rationalized being is spatial because of a self-referentiality. Dictionary definitions follow the same spiral pattern as well as most logical progressions thus necessitating a basic formalism grounding itself under the nature of “space”. All is spatial. Even the emotions, that which we do not perceive as logical, are described under spatial terms: up/down, full/empty, right/left wing, fragmented/unified, etc.
So when dealing with axioms, we are left with form being self evident strictly because it “just is” much in the same nature where space is observe as “just is”. Even the nature of the axiom, or self-evidence, is assumption and this assumption is further assumed through further assumptions thus resulting in a circularity in the nature of the self evident truth, the axiom, and the assumption.
A dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses in the respect that Nothingness, which is the existing state without the senses, self-negates, through double negation or self-contradiction, into form much in the same manner a perfect circle cannot be observed through the senses but rather as a negation of nothingness as pure abstraction. It also exists after the senses exampled through the drawing out of one formless point into many connecting 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. 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" whether physical or abstract, are in a state of super positioning where not only do both processes exist in many states at once, through a constant repetition of the point existing through the point, but they effectively overlay each other. In simpler terms the dimensions of abstraction and empiricality are superimposed, under their respective principles, considering the convergence/divergence of points exists simultaneously in both abstract and empirical phenomenon. What we have in common between the convergence/divergence of point particles and points of view is the respective point as the common description of both. Point particles contracting and expanding into forms share the same nature as points of view contracting and expanding into forms as well.
This manifestation of multiple states at once, in the respect that the contraction and expansion of point particles and points of view both occur in their respective empirical or abstract states, necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. Form is a universal law and with form as a universal law space is a universal law. This “law” is strictly the manifestations of “as is-ness” in the respect a law is nothing other than an observation of something or somethings for strictly being what they are.
The continual repetition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, in the respect empirical and abstract reality is the expansion and contraction of points, necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; the underlying connection of all forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction of points resulting in self-referencing loops as pure movement whether they be empirical or abstract forms.
For example a bird expands from the phenomenon of dirt and contracts back into dirt. Or the number, on the number line, expands from a 0d point through the line and contracts back to the 0d point through the very same line. Expansion and contraction is a repeated form, in the respect that it is a loop, underlying all forms. These forms are contexts for further forms given one form exists through another. This is a loop in another respect given form occurring through form is a loop considering one set of boundaries occurs through another, the loop form is omnipresent. All variations from a single source, the loop in this case, mandates all variations as a definition of that single source as fractals of that single source. In other terms the looping nature of reality occurs through further loops thus one loop results in many and many results in one.
The source distinguishes itself through itself as itself as both one and many things. Each phenomenon is a fractal of the totality of all phenomena where the one is observed through the many. Each phenomenon is a part of the whole with the whole being observed through the multiplicity of parts. This multiplicity of parts exist through a void separating them into parts. In simpler terms each part has a barrier of formlessness as an absence of form separating them Each part is separated through void and each part moves to another part through the void. Void is the barrier which allows for the multiplicity of parts with these multiplicity of parts being variations of each other as extensions of the single source. This extentionality of the many phenomena from the one is evidenced by the constant repetition of forms across many forms; evidence of this can be seen in the branching form, i.e the “Y”, seen in rivers, veins, capillaries, branches of trees/plants, lightning, cracks in a rock, abstractions of concepts, etc.
In observing these fractals, a series of monads results in parts of a phenomenon composing further parts of a phenomenon where the monads are the objects which are composing each of the series of said phenomena. Each part of phenomenon reduces itself to a monad with each broken down part, as a monad, being reduced to further parts as further monads. The monad repeats itself through further monads. In other terms this can be observed under a paradoxical question: if a particle is reduced to further particles and these particles are reduced to further particles is the particle ever really reduced considering all that results of this infinite reduction is a particle?
The monad is strictly the summation of parts as a singular entity, in this case the point, given all phenomena, as means of change to further phenomena, are reducible to points. The totality of a phenomenon is the means of change to the parts which compose it, i.e when we observed a whole we are observing the starting point through which something is broken down into other wholes. One phenomenon is composed of individual points with each of these individual points being composed of further individual points. One series of individual points results in another series of individual points. Each point is defined through the gap between them with this gap being the means through which the points interact. The gap between points is the foundation of form thus form begins with nothingness. A series of monads work together to give foundation to form with the monad being another way a saying “a whole”. A whole is a relation of wholes. However each monad is fundamentally the same given each monad as a whole is a point of change into further whole, thus the one is expressed through the many. This can be further expressed under the assertion that each whole is a point of change thus a point.
All phenomenon as connected through the expansion and contract from a point of origin through a self-directed movement causes the point to be omnipresent given one point, be it an abstract point of view or empirical point particle, results in another point. This self-direction is the point moving through itself as itself, it is the universality of the point through the point which demands a form of omnipresence. Form is the gap between points with the gap between forms being the point itself. On one hand the point exists as the gap between forms and in another respect the point is pure form with the gaps between forms being formlessness. Form and formless alternate their respect beginning dependent upon the beginning premise one seeks to measure thus leading to a paradoxical view of what the point really is.
One phenomenon is the relative gap of the other where the point of observation is the means of change into further forms. The forms themselves, upon a meta analysis, are composed of further points of change. An example of this being a leaf being the gap which separates it from the tree yet the totality of leaves, i.e. gaps, is the tree. The leaf is the point of change into the tree and vice versa. Change is composed of further changes, one point is composed of many and many composed of one. The point alternates between the one and the many with this one and many dualism being the foundations of measurement
An example is a particle. From a distance it appears as a point, upon magnification it appears as further particles which appear as points. Each of these points in turn result in further points with the point itself being a summation of 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 expansion and contraction of phenomena necessitates all phenomenon as repetitive thus cycling. However, they are intrinsically empty in themselves as one phenomenon progresses to another and this progression is the necessary relationship between things in time which allows for identity. The emptiness of the thing in itself allows this progression to occur given the emptiness is the means of change of one phenomenon to another considering this emptiness is formlessness. Formlessness is the means of change from one form to another where this formlessness is the means of variation. The absence of form in a prior form is the means through which one form results in another given this formlessness is the barrier between one form and another, this barrier is what allows for the distinction of forms with this distinction being variation. For example a cup is distinguished from the liquid it holds given its intrinsic emptiness through which the liquid moves allows for the cup to exist as distinct from the liquid. Emptiness is the potentiality of relations, it allows for things to occur by allowing variation through the negation of one form into another.
This emptiness is grounded in this very same looping found in all repeated phenomena as the loop is empty in itself with this emptiness the loop contains allowing for the repetition of phenomena under the phenomenon known as change. In other terms the repetition of phenomena necessitates an emptiness between the original phenomenon and its repeated state. This emptiness allows for the repetition to occur as repetition is a separation of a thing within time and space. Remember all phenomena exist through loops as loops and these loops are empty. Emptiness and the phenomenon of the loop are co-dependent.
The universality of repetition results in the loop but this loop nature can be seen in another respect under the phenomenon of shape. Phenomena exist through shapes. These shapes are outlinable, as 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. Even the tracing of an abstract relationship, such as love, results in the reciprocal loop form between the phenomena as directed towards each other.
This looping form also results from nothingness as double negation, or voiding of void, also reflects everything cycling from a single point of nothingness.. It is the premise for a circularity inherent within the capacity of all phenomena thus further necessitating space as the underlying means of all being where this space is effectively without form in one respect and form in another. Everything coming from a single point where creation ex nihilo occurs through a voiding of void, synonymous to the negation of negation, as a cycle. This negation of negation is a contradiction much in the same manner the opposition of opposition is a contradiction.
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 as evidenced by the multiplicity of schools of thought. However, this contradiction is the grounding of all distinction as something is defined through a contrasting state. Contradiction results in definition, definition is the opposition of forms, this opposition of forms is grounded in their states as separate.
Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion and how being manifests from nothing, 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. This transcendence 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. This absence of thought is the empty space through which the line is imprinted.
The form of the line imprints on the empty backdrop of the mind. It is the absence of thought which leaves an inherently formless state within the nature of thought. We assume through an intrinsic emptiness, this emptiness is imprinted by forms where the imprintation of form is the replication of form.
The same nature of empty space, as perceived through the senses, observes that which is without form imprinted by being. For example, formless sand takes 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, this is considering formlessness ranges across all the senses as a prerequisite to them. Space is the universal axiom that cannot be doubted as to doubt leaves a perceivable sense of emptiness in meaning…and we cycle back to the original premise again as we are left describing space under spatial terms, in this case the term “emptiness”.
All counting is grounded in space, where number and form are inseparable as all numbers are entities for quantifying forms which are composed of a spatial nature. The simplest quantifiable form is that of the line and the act of quantification is inseparable from the forms which compose it. These forms are spatial. All logic is grounded in forms, spatial constructs, as the variables are connected to empirical qualities or time itself which is composed of interplaying forms.
All math/logic are inseparable from forms as the symbols which are attached to the forms (being it 1 orange or A= horse) in turn follow a “formality”…this sounds like a pun but it is not. A form of reasoning is what justifies math and logic. This form of reasoning is grounded in assumed points of reference that follow a linear form. One symbol progresses to another with the progression of the symbols showing how they connected. One symbol goes to many. Dually the repetition of forms through a new state observes a circular self-referentiality.
Logic and math have an inherent underlying spatial form which lies underneath their nature simply by observing their tautological nature as the repetition of each respective phenomenon through a new form. We see this in any logical argument where the premises results in a new form under the conclusion with the conclusion being the premises in a new form. A and B resulting in C is A and B repeating in a new form. The number line, the foundation for counting and hence the foundation for proof, is not only pure form as space but shows how the numbers themselves exist in a progressively self-referencing manner where all numbers are variations of 1 with each number being a variation of further numbers founded upon 1. 1 is a variation of 0 through 0 self-negating into 1, much in the same manner a point negates into another point and then into a line. We see this further in the beginning of a line being founded upon 0 then resulting into 1 line then 2 lines then 3 lines, so on and so forth, then ending again in 0 as the ending point. This negation of one form into another tautological form is a spiral through a progressive self referentiality; the cycling of the premises into the conclusion is a self-referentiality while with the number line the cycling of the point, as 0, results in the progression of the line into further lines, numbers into further numbers, through the aforementioned progressive self-referencing as repetition.
Rationality occurs through a spiral, the spiral is a form, this form is spatial in nature, thus all of rationalized being is spatial because of a self-referentiality. Dictionary definitions follow the same spiral pattern as well as most logical progressions thus necessitating a basic formalism grounding itself under the nature of “space”. All is spatial. Even the emotions, that which we do not perceive as logical, are described under spatial terms: up/down, full/empty, right/left wing, fragmented/unified, etc.
So when dealing with axioms, we are left with form being self evident strictly because it “just is” much in the same nature where space is observe as “just is”. Even the nature of the axiom, or self-evidence, is assumption and this assumption is further assumed through further assumptions thus resulting in a circularity in the nature of the self evident truth, the axiom, and the assumption.
A dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses in the respect that Nothingness, which is the existing state without the senses, self-negates, through double negation or self-contradiction, into form much in the same manner a perfect circle cannot be observed through the senses but rather as a negation of nothingness as pure abstraction. It also exists after the senses exampled through the drawing out of one formless point into many connecting 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. 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" whether physical or abstract, are in a state of super positioning where not only do both processes exist in many states at once, through a constant repetition of the point existing through the point, but they effectively overlay each other. In simpler terms the dimensions of abstraction and empiricality are superimposed, under their respective principles, considering the convergence/divergence of points exists simultaneously in both abstract and empirical phenomenon. What we have in common between the convergence/divergence of point particles and points of view is the respective point as the common description of both. Point particles contracting and expanding into forms share the same nature as points of view contracting and expanding into forms as well.
This manifestation of multiple states at once, in the respect that the contraction and expansion of point particles and points of view both occur in their respective empirical or abstract states, necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. Form is a universal law and with form as a universal law space is a universal law. This “law” is strictly the manifestations of “as is-ness” in the respect a law is nothing other than an observation of something or somethings for strictly being what they are.
The continual repetition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, in the respect empirical and abstract reality is the expansion and contraction of points, necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; the underlying connection of all forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction of points resulting in self-referencing loops as pure movement whether they be empirical or abstract forms.
For example a bird expands from the phenomenon of dirt and contracts back into dirt. Or the number, on the number line, expands from a 0d point through the line and contracts back to the 0d point through the very same line. Expansion and contraction is a repeated form, in the respect that it is a loop, underlying all forms. These forms are contexts for further forms given one form exists through another. This is a loop in another respect given form occurring through form is a loop considering one set of boundaries occurs through another, the loop form is omnipresent. All variations from a single source, the loop in this case, mandates all variations as a definition of that single source as fractals of that single source. In other terms the looping nature of reality occurs through further loops thus one loop results in many and many results in one.
The source distinguishes itself through itself as itself as both one and many things. Each phenomenon is a fractal of the totality of all phenomena where the one is observed through the many. Each phenomenon is a part of the whole with the whole being observed through the multiplicity of parts. This multiplicity of parts exist through a void separating them into parts. In simpler terms each part has a barrier of formlessness as an absence of form separating them Each part is separated through void and each part moves to another part through the void. Void is the barrier which allows for the multiplicity of parts with these multiplicity of parts being variations of each other as extensions of the single source. This extentionality of the many phenomena from the one is evidenced by the constant repetition of forms across many forms; evidence of this can be seen in the branching form, i.e the “Y”, seen in rivers, veins, capillaries, branches of trees/plants, lightning, cracks in a rock, abstractions of concepts, etc.
In observing these fractals, a series of monads results in parts of a phenomenon composing further parts of a phenomenon where the monads are the objects which are composing each of the series of said phenomena. Each part of phenomenon reduces itself to a monad with each broken down part, as a monad, being reduced to further parts as further monads. The monad repeats itself through further monads. In other terms this can be observed under a paradoxical question: if a particle is reduced to further particles and these particles are reduced to further particles is the particle ever really reduced considering all that results of this infinite reduction is a particle?
The monad is strictly the summation of parts as a singular entity, in this case the point, given all phenomena, as means of change to further phenomena, are reducible to points. The totality of a phenomenon is the means of change to the parts which compose it, i.e when we observed a whole we are observing the starting point through which something is broken down into other wholes. One phenomenon is composed of individual points with each of these individual points being composed of further individual points. One series of individual points results in another series of individual points. Each point is defined through the gap between them with this gap being the means through which the points interact. The gap between points is the foundation of form thus form begins with nothingness. A series of monads work together to give foundation to form with the monad being another way a saying “a whole”. A whole is a relation of wholes. However each monad is fundamentally the same given each monad as a whole is a point of change into further whole, thus the one is expressed through the many. This can be further expressed under the assertion that each whole is a point of change thus a point.
All phenomenon as connected through the expansion and contract from a point of origin through a self-directed movement causes the point to be omnipresent given one point, be it an abstract point of view or empirical point particle, results in another point. This self-direction is the point moving through itself as itself, it is the universality of the point through the point which demands a form of omnipresence. Form is the gap between points with the gap between forms being the point itself. On one hand the point exists as the gap between forms and in another respect the point is pure form with the gaps between forms being formlessness. Form and formless alternate their respect beginning dependent upon the beginning premise one seeks to measure thus leading to a paradoxical view of what the point really is.
One phenomenon is the relative gap of the other where the point of observation is the means of change into further forms. The forms themselves, upon a meta analysis, are composed of further points of change. An example of this being a leaf being the gap which separates it from the tree yet the totality of leaves, i.e. gaps, is the tree. The leaf is the point of change into the tree and vice versa. Change is composed of further changes, one point is composed of many and many composed of one. The point alternates between the one and the many with this one and many dualism being the foundations of measurement
An example is a particle. From a distance it appears as a point, upon magnification it appears as further particles which appear as points. Each of these points in turn result in further points with the point itself being a summation of 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 expansion and contraction of phenomena necessitates all phenomenon as repetitive thus cycling. However, they are intrinsically empty in themselves as one phenomenon progresses to another and this progression is the necessary relationship between things in time which allows for identity. The emptiness of the thing in itself allows this progression to occur given the emptiness is the means of change of one phenomenon to another considering this emptiness is formlessness. Formlessness is the means of change from one form to another where this formlessness is the means of variation. The absence of form in a prior form is the means through which one form results in another given this formlessness is the barrier between one form and another, this barrier is what allows for the distinction of forms with this distinction being variation. For example a cup is distinguished from the liquid it holds given its intrinsic emptiness through which the liquid moves allows for the cup to exist as distinct from the liquid. Emptiness is the potentiality of relations, it allows for things to occur by allowing variation through the negation of one form into another.
This emptiness is grounded in this very same looping found in all repeated phenomena as the loop is empty in itself with this emptiness the loop contains allowing for the repetition of phenomena under the phenomenon known as change. In other terms the repetition of phenomena necessitates an emptiness between the original phenomenon and its repeated state. This emptiness allows for the repetition to occur as repetition is a separation of a thing within time and space. Remember all phenomena exist through loops as loops and these loops are empty. Emptiness and the phenomenon of the loop are co-dependent.
The universality of repetition results in the loop but this loop nature can be seen in another respect under the phenomenon of shape. Phenomena exist through shapes. These shapes are outlinable, as 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. Even the tracing of an abstract relationship, such as love, results in the reciprocal loop form between the phenomena as directed towards each other.
This looping form also results from nothingness as double negation, or voiding of void, also reflects everything cycling from a single point of nothingness.. It is the premise for a circularity inherent within the capacity of all phenomena thus further necessitating space as the underlying means of all being where this space is effectively without form in one respect and form in another. Everything coming from a single point where creation ex nihilo occurs through a voiding of void, synonymous to the negation of negation, as a cycle. This negation of negation is a contradiction much in the same manner the opposition of opposition is a contradiction.
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 as evidenced by the multiplicity of schools of thought. However, this contradiction is the grounding of all distinction as something is defined through a contrasting state. Contradiction results in definition, definition is the opposition of forms, this opposition of forms is grounded in their states as separate.
Re: Loops and Void
XIV
Distinction is the divergence of one phenomenon into another. This fundamental nature of division within all phenomena sets the foundation for all phenomena as potential new phenomea in the respect that one actual state leads into another through the division of time This actuality and potentiality dualism is the grounding of an infinite regress as one actual phenomenon exists as a potential new phenomenon continually given the potentiality which underlies actuality is fundamentally formless thus is beyond finitude or temporality. Potentiality is beyond being, as it is unactual, thus is infinite as it is indefinite.
An infinite regress of variables is the voiding of variables through an innate potentiality that divides an actual state into a new form. Potentiality is the formlessness through which a new variable, as an assertion, occurs. 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 so it can be stated with the car example its potentiality for change is the formlessness which allows a new state of being, i.e. a new motor through a negation of the previous motor, to occur.
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. The actual is form, the potential is formless.
Another 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 individuates (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 as the manifestation of singularness. The formlessness of potentiality is the grounds for this.
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 resulting 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 in newer variations.
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 in the respect that all change contains elements of the original state. Potentiality is the means of a form continuing across time where actuality is the form itself as the summation of changes much in the same manner where a single line, as composed of further lines, represents the summation of these multiple singular entities as one. Formlessness is change, form is the summation of these changes as a limit or boundary. The limit, or boundary, is change as given direction or in other terms limit is the giving of definition to formlessness and this occurs through direction; by applying direction to formlessness form occurs as the formlessness given direction results in movement and this movement is form.
Each term in philosophy, or science and religion for that matter, thus has a formless nature where each term exists as a potential new term. This formless nature of all phenomenon, including the terms which form philosophy and all modes of reasoning, as potential phenomenon, are summated under the premise or conclusion as a single point of awareness. This single point of awareness is pure form as paradoxical no form, it is that from which all form arises.
This necessitates that given any assertion it will always be finite largely because of its changing context. This finiteness is the limit of the term as an individual entity, which while subject to infinite regress under a continual change, always manifesting itself as some form of a singularity stemming from its original source. This singularity, which is repeated in a meta form, is the individuality of the phenomenon, this individuality is the means of change from one phenomenon to another. Infinity is the "now" which perpetually converges and diverges phenomena always resulting in a continually changing finite state which accounts for an infinite regress.
The individual state of one being, as distinct, is a reflection of the singular whole through which it manifests. The properties of the greater exist like fractals/fractions through the lesser. This original source is the point as either an empirical particle or means of awareness as a point of view. Either way the origin is a point.
It is this potentiality, as formlessness, that 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, by their universal actual and potential nature, thereby necessitating a a transfinite state. The form of actuality and the formlessness of potentiality transcends across all of being. This nature of actuality and potentiality can be seen as a tautology of form and formlessness.
For example (A→ B), "A" must have within its capability the ability morph into B. B must exist 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, into further variables such as C. All causality has a "reverse" or "retro causal" 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 phenomenon exists in multiple super positioned 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 determine the present and the past. The potentiality of a phenomenon, as formless, exists as a form from the perspective of a higher timeline.
This retro causal nature, where A morphs into B and B determines whether if at all A exists, necessitates time as having a cyclical nature represented through a spiral. 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. An example of this is the circular motion of a car going in circles which exists as the form which guides the car’s movement; the circularity of the car’s movement allows the car to exist and this circularity of movement is a relative form when viewed from a higher dimension or timeline. This higher form behind forms, 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.
Cycling back to previous assertions it can be said that the point, be it a particle or point of view, is the potentiality of all phenomenon as well as its origins.
The "explosion" of the Big Bang in physics 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. An empirical phenomenon expands into an abstract phenomenon and an abstract phenomenon contracts into an empirical one. This occurs vice versa as well.
For example, a sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form and vice versa. 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 in turn 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. What reality consists of is layered forms directing each other through each other where what is imagined, i.e. given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form and vice versa. This alternation between abstraction and empiricality is underlined as strictly an "assumption" itself and this assumption is both abstract and empirical considering it is grounded in formlessness as all assumptions are without ground until further analyzed. The formlessness of one phenomenon assumes the form of another as one assumption takes the form of another. In these respects the act of assumption is a universal phenomenon that implies a universal consciousness and to add further paradox this is assumed as well.
Distinction is the divergence of one phenomenon into another. This fundamental nature of division within all phenomena sets the foundation for all phenomena as potential new phenomea in the respect that one actual state leads into another through the division of time This actuality and potentiality dualism is the grounding of an infinite regress as one actual phenomenon exists as a potential new phenomenon continually given the potentiality which underlies actuality is fundamentally formless thus is beyond finitude or temporality. Potentiality is beyond being, as it is unactual, thus is infinite as it is indefinite.
An infinite regress of variables is the voiding of variables through an innate potentiality that divides an actual state into a new form. Potentiality is the formlessness through which a new variable, as an assertion, occurs. 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 so it can be stated with the car example its potentiality for change is the formlessness which allows a new state of being, i.e. a new motor through a negation of the previous motor, to occur.
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. The actual is form, the potential is formless.
Another 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 individuates (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 as the manifestation of singularness. The formlessness of potentiality is the grounds for this.
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 resulting 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 in newer variations.
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 in the respect that all change contains elements of the original state. Potentiality is the means of a form continuing across time where actuality is the form itself as the summation of changes much in the same manner where a single line, as composed of further lines, represents the summation of these multiple singular entities as one. Formlessness is change, form is the summation of these changes as a limit or boundary. The limit, or boundary, is change as given direction or in other terms limit is the giving of definition to formlessness and this occurs through direction; by applying direction to formlessness form occurs as the formlessness given direction results in movement and this movement is form.
Each term in philosophy, or science and religion for that matter, thus has a formless nature where each term exists as a potential new term. This formless nature of all phenomenon, including the terms which form philosophy and all modes of reasoning, as potential phenomenon, are summated under the premise or conclusion as a single point of awareness. This single point of awareness is pure form as paradoxical no form, it is that from which all form arises.
This necessitates that given any assertion it will always be finite largely because of its changing context. This finiteness is the limit of the term as an individual entity, which while subject to infinite regress under a continual change, always manifesting itself as some form of a singularity stemming from its original source. This singularity, which is repeated in a meta form, is the individuality of the phenomenon, this individuality is the means of change from one phenomenon to another. Infinity is the "now" which perpetually converges and diverges phenomena always resulting in a continually changing finite state which accounts for an infinite regress.
The individual state of one being, as distinct, is a reflection of the singular whole through which it manifests. The properties of the greater exist like fractals/fractions through the lesser. This original source is the point as either an empirical particle or means of awareness as a point of view. Either way the origin is a point.
It is this potentiality, as formlessness, that 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, by their universal actual and potential nature, thereby necessitating a a transfinite state. The form of actuality and the formlessness of potentiality transcends across all of being. This nature of actuality and potentiality can be seen as a tautology of form and formlessness.
For example (A→ B), "A" must have within its capability the ability morph into B. B must exist 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, into further variables such as C. All causality has a "reverse" or "retro causal" 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 phenomenon exists in multiple super positioned 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 determine the present and the past. The potentiality of a phenomenon, as formless, exists as a form from the perspective of a higher timeline.
This retro causal nature, where A morphs into B and B determines whether if at all A exists, necessitates time as having a cyclical nature represented through a spiral. 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. An example of this is the circular motion of a car going in circles which exists as the form which guides the car’s movement; the circularity of the car’s movement allows the car to exist and this circularity of movement is a relative form when viewed from a higher dimension or timeline. This higher form behind forms, 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.
Cycling back to previous assertions it can be said that the point, be it a particle or point of view, is the potentiality of all phenomenon as well as its origins.
The "explosion" of the Big Bang in physics 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. An empirical phenomenon expands into an abstract phenomenon and an abstract phenomenon contracts into an empirical one. This occurs vice versa as well.
For example, a sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form and vice versa. 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 in turn 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. What reality consists of is layered forms directing each other through each other where what is imagined, i.e. given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form and vice versa. This alternation between abstraction and empiricality is underlined as strictly an "assumption" itself and this assumption is both abstract and empirical considering it is grounded in formlessness as all assumptions are without ground until further analyzed. The formlessness of one phenomenon assumes the form of another as one assumption takes the form of another. In these respects the act of assumption is a universal phenomenon that implies a universal consciousness and to add further paradox this is assumed as well.
Re: Loops and Void
XV
The nature of assumption, as both abstract and empirical, relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form. Empirically this occurs using 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 absence of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then projects 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 absence 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, as an act of awareness is a circle as a loop. This occurs under the first act of the voiding of void which is a self-referential loop where being exists in contrast through nothingness through a self-referentiality. Being extends itself in all directions simultaneously, in a void, considering direction only has a relative state of being through the relationship of one phenomenon to another.
In the case of nothingness, being self-references in all directions simultaneously given being is a loop derived from self referentiality in its contrast to nothingness. This circle is the projection of one's point of awareness in all directions as one singular direction layered upon itself through multiple states. This can be seen under the nature of the circle as composed of infinite lines stemming in all directions. It is one line reflected across many relative positions thus is layered upon itself to form a circle.
The act of self-reflection thus is a negation of one's prior empty state into that of form. This double negation, as a loop, results in the first loop where only the loop exists considering nothingness cannot be observed only being. Form follows function and this function is voidness as a means of change. Change begins with alternation, as a double negation or void of void, and alternation is cyclicality. Change as cyclical is the manifestation of the circle as the encapsulation of all these changes at one time under a universal symbol.
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, as connected circles, with these forms being loops in and of themselves considering the same beginning and end point of the circle results. This circle, as composed of other circles represents the change from one circle to another within another as a sphere. Depth is nothing other than the act of change from one vertex/horizon to another vertex/horizon. In the land of the flat what is seen as depth is change from one flat state to another, depth is the change of one two dimensional image to another. These multiple changing 2 dimensional states results in a sphere, with multiple spheres resulting in further forms.
In simpler terms depth, as the third dimension, is the act of change from one two-dimensional image into another. Reality as having depth is reality as changing from one flat image to another. The arrangement and rearrangement of circles results in a variety of loops which exist as the forms which compose all of being. These forms, as extensions of the circles they are derived from, are empty as well, thus acting as patterns through which we absorb further patterns like a sieve. All patterns of reality, as forms, are empty loops. This empty nature allows one pattern to assume another. Patterns which align with the patterns in the mind’s eye are absorbed, patterns which do not align with the patterns in the mind's eye are rejected. This reflects the inherently bias nature of not just observation but the imprintation of one form against another as extensions of a greater consciousness which is superseded by the forms which compose it.
For example the patterns which form a mammal align to that of a horse, this horse in turn is reassumed under the prerequisite pattern of mammal due to the alignment of patterns. The pattern of mammal shares the same patterns of the horse, thus seemingly separate forms equivocate through common repeating bonds. The same occurs for moral habits such as not stealing. When confronted with the act of theft, the theft, as a pattern of actions, is rejected due to its inability to align with the pattern of non-theft. This beginning state of acceptance and rejection of patterns results in what we call as "bias", where patterns are assumed according to their 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. The example of the pattern of exercise can be used. The exercise regimen is reflected upon by the observer and in turn is modified into a new pattern through a new exercise regimen based upon the successes and failures of the former.
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. A point of view is that which assumes thus is empty of form. When this point of view reflects back upon itself, from a new angle (with this new angle as the creation of a form), a form is given as "the self". This is multiple angles of awareness through which the self forms as a new whole. This subjective state self-reflecting upon itself becomes multiple points of view thus necessitating the self becoming an objective state of being given multiple angles of awareness both results in a form and is a form.
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. This cyclic nature results in the "I" as an objective state of awareness. The "I" is observed through the "I" thus resulting in the "I" as a loop. Consciousness and the circular form through which it originates cannot be separated.
It is this nature of double negation which mandates awareness as a process of inverting forms given double negation results in the isomorphism of one state into another. The act of inverting one assumption to another is a process of measurement and occurs through the act of "counting". For this mental exercise, and argument, the act of “counting” will be viewed as synonymous qualitatively to the act of “labeling” or “naming”:
1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomena into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomena. The phenomenon is assumed, through a point of awareness, and its inverted into further phenomena. The point of awareness, is void in and 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". Curves form the outline of the rose and separate it from its background as a singular entity. Even the color scheme is grounded in how light curves, or rather is composed of curves that separate it from other colors.. 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.
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 as the progression of one point to another. 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. The circle is all directions at once. 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 occur with:
10A. Formless mass projecting itself as volume.
10B. Formless 0 projecting itself to 1, then 1 again as 2, 3, 4, etc. on the number line.
10C. 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 the “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 it 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 manifestation of multiple lines as one line necessitates it as ever changing therefore dynamic. 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:
12A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line/form.
12B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voided into multiple lines.
12C. 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 the relation of multiple forms which are inherently infinite. The presence of void as being beyond form allows for the continual manifestation of forms in newer and newer variations.
12D. The nature of consciousness as grounded in assumption, necessitates space as fundamentally aware, with all reasoning grounded in basic platonic entities. Thus something create from a formless state, such as technology as a projection of inherently assumed way of perceiving the world, is strictly a means of using curvature (tool) to invert further curvature(elements) into a new curvature (tool) 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.
The application of labels or numbers to a phenomenon is an application of units. A unit is a means of equivocating an abstract symbol to another phenomenon. It is a means of equivocation.
In equivocating one phenomenon to another is to reorder one phenomenon into the likes and form of another. Equivocation is recursion as an act of copying. That which is measured is reordered into the mode of measurement.
For example in dividing an orange into x number of parts is to manifest the orange as copying what x is in form where the orange exists as an image of x.
In dividing an apple into 2,3,4,5...etc. pieces is to divide the apple into singular entities in themselves given each piece is equivalent to one. One cannot be observed on its own terms except through other ones thus necessitating each individual piece as empty in itself.
This can be seen in a line where the line cannot be observed except in relation to other lines which it both composes and is composed of.
Dually this same nature can be seen in 0, through a 0d point, where the point on its own terms cannot be observed given it is fundamentally nothing. The point is observed through its progression to another point with this progression resulting in the form of a line. In 0 progressing to 0 an equation of 0=0 occurs which is embodied spatially under the line. This 0=0 results in the first number of one given the line as a quantifiable entity begins the first act of quantifiable existence. One begins it equivocation to another one, as 1=1, when the line changes into another line through the 0d point.
Even then the point is only observed as the change from one line into another and as such is not so much a thing in itself but rather a mode of change
Thus 0=0 progresses to 1=1, as formlessness into form, where this equivocation is expressed under x=x given equality under the symbol of "=" occurs through a repetition of said phenomenon. Equality is only observed through repetition both in the actual state of the phenomenon itself as well as the more abstract notion of 1=1 where the equals sign is only defined through the repetition of 1.
Under one portion x=x is the equivocation of forms, i.e. 1=1, in another respect it is an equivocation of changes (formlessness), i.e. 0=0, thus necessitating x as a variable equivalent to both form and change.
One as intrinsically empty in itself can be observed under the line fundamentally as a sideways loop, given its beginning and end points are the same 0d point as 0=0, thus necessitating 1 contains zero much in the same manner a loop contains emptiness. This empty nature of 1=1 occurs through its equivalence to the variable of x=x which further equivocates 1 to 0 given both 1 and 0, through the number line, are equivalent to x=x.
In simpler terms the number 1 as an empty loop contains 0=0; thus 1 is a mode of change to further numbers given it cannot exist on its own terms due to its premise being grounded in the emptiness of zero. Zero cannot be observed on its own terms given it is nothing, and with the number 1 being grounded in this same nature it follows 0 as a mode of change given 1 must change into another 1 if it is to exist.
1 as empty is 1 as a mode of change to further 1. Form contains formlessness, as evidenced through the loop, and this formlessness is the means of change into another form.
1 is an empty loop evidenced by the line containing 0d points, because it contains other lines, and the fact the line contains both the same beginning and end points as the 0d point. 1 as an empty loop is 1 equating to 0 given all numbers change to further numbers, all ones change into further ones, due to their empty nature. The emptiness of 1 allows it to equate to 0 and the encapsulation of 0 allows it to equate to 1.
The manifestation of all numbers through the self referentiality of 1 being grounded in 0 further reflects itself across all systems of measurement considering they 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, one form changes into another.
This inversion of one form into another reflects the inversion of one set into another as both a fractal and fraction.
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 (i.e. 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 recursion, 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 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 progressive change of one form into another applies to numbers simultaneously.
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, this point is equivalent to 0.
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, this form equals 1.
7. The line is 0=0 as one point existing through another point. This 0=0, as x=x, is 1=1 where 1=1 is the line itself. ((0=0)=(1=1))=(x=x). 0 equals 1 through "x", 0 does not equal 1 except through the middle term of "x". 0 progresses to and equivocates to 1 through x with x being the totality of the line and points itself.
This act of inversion occurs within arithmetic as well where subtraction/addition and multiplication/division cycle between each other and are inseparable:
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 inseparable.
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 inseparable.
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 phenomenon 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 each other 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 assumption, as both abstract and empirical, relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form. Empirically this occurs using 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 absence of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then projects 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 absence 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, as an act of awareness is a circle as a loop. This occurs under the first act of the voiding of void which is a self-referential loop where being exists in contrast through nothingness through a self-referentiality. Being extends itself in all directions simultaneously, in a void, considering direction only has a relative state of being through the relationship of one phenomenon to another.
In the case of nothingness, being self-references in all directions simultaneously given being is a loop derived from self referentiality in its contrast to nothingness. This circle is the projection of one's point of awareness in all directions as one singular direction layered upon itself through multiple states. This can be seen under the nature of the circle as composed of infinite lines stemming in all directions. It is one line reflected across many relative positions thus is layered upon itself to form a circle.
The act of self-reflection thus is a negation of one's prior empty state into that of form. This double negation, as a loop, results in the first loop where only the loop exists considering nothingness cannot be observed only being. Form follows function and this function is voidness as a means of change. Change begins with alternation, as a double negation or void of void, and alternation is cyclicality. Change as cyclical is the manifestation of the circle as the encapsulation of all these changes at one time under a universal symbol.
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, as connected circles, with these forms being loops in and of themselves considering the same beginning and end point of the circle results. This circle, as composed of other circles represents the change from one circle to another within another as a sphere. Depth is nothing other than the act of change from one vertex/horizon to another vertex/horizon. In the land of the flat what is seen as depth is change from one flat state to another, depth is the change of one two dimensional image to another. These multiple changing 2 dimensional states results in a sphere, with multiple spheres resulting in further forms.
In simpler terms depth, as the third dimension, is the act of change from one two-dimensional image into another. Reality as having depth is reality as changing from one flat image to another. The arrangement and rearrangement of circles results in a variety of loops which exist as the forms which compose all of being. These forms, as extensions of the circles they are derived from, are empty as well, thus acting as patterns through which we absorb further patterns like a sieve. All patterns of reality, as forms, are empty loops. This empty nature allows one pattern to assume another. Patterns which align with the patterns in the mind’s eye are absorbed, patterns which do not align with the patterns in the mind's eye are rejected. This reflects the inherently bias nature of not just observation but the imprintation of one form against another as extensions of a greater consciousness which is superseded by the forms which compose it.
For example the patterns which form a mammal align to that of a horse, this horse in turn is reassumed under the prerequisite pattern of mammal due to the alignment of patterns. The pattern of mammal shares the same patterns of the horse, thus seemingly separate forms equivocate through common repeating bonds. The same occurs for moral habits such as not stealing. When confronted with the act of theft, the theft, as a pattern of actions, is rejected due to its inability to align with the pattern of non-theft. This beginning state of acceptance and rejection of patterns results in what we call as "bias", where patterns are assumed according to their 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. The example of the pattern of exercise can be used. The exercise regimen is reflected upon by the observer and in turn is modified into a new pattern through a new exercise regimen based upon the successes and failures of the former.
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. A point of view is that which assumes thus is empty of form. When this point of view reflects back upon itself, from a new angle (with this new angle as the creation of a form), a form is given as "the self". This is multiple angles of awareness through which the self forms as a new whole. This subjective state self-reflecting upon itself becomes multiple points of view thus necessitating the self becoming an objective state of being given multiple angles of awareness both results in a form and is a form.
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. This cyclic nature results in the "I" as an objective state of awareness. The "I" is observed through the "I" thus resulting in the "I" as a loop. Consciousness and the circular form through which it originates cannot be separated.
It is this nature of double negation which mandates awareness as a process of inverting forms given double negation results in the isomorphism of one state into another. The act of inverting one assumption to another is a process of measurement and occurs through the act of "counting". For this mental exercise, and argument, the act of “counting” will be viewed as synonymous qualitatively to the act of “labeling” or “naming”:
1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomena into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomena. The phenomenon is assumed, through a point of awareness, and its inverted into further phenomena. The point of awareness, is void in and 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". Curves form the outline of the rose and separate it from its background as a singular entity. Even the color scheme is grounded in how light curves, or rather is composed of curves that separate it from other colors.. 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.
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 as the progression of one point to another. 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. The circle is all directions at once. 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 occur with:
10A. Formless mass projecting itself as volume.
10B. Formless 0 projecting itself to 1, then 1 again as 2, 3, 4, etc. on the number line.
10C. 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 the “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 it 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 manifestation of multiple lines as one line necessitates it as ever changing therefore dynamic. 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:
12A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line/form.
12B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voided into multiple lines.
12C. 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 the relation of multiple forms which are inherently infinite. The presence of void as being beyond form allows for the continual manifestation of forms in newer and newer variations.
12D. The nature of consciousness as grounded in assumption, necessitates space as fundamentally aware, with all reasoning grounded in basic platonic entities. Thus something create from a formless state, such as technology as a projection of inherently assumed way of perceiving the world, is strictly a means of using curvature (tool) to invert further curvature(elements) into a new curvature (tool) 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.
The application of labels or numbers to a phenomenon is an application of units. A unit is a means of equivocating an abstract symbol to another phenomenon. It is a means of equivocation.
In equivocating one phenomenon to another is to reorder one phenomenon into the likes and form of another. Equivocation is recursion as an act of copying. That which is measured is reordered into the mode of measurement.
For example in dividing an orange into x number of parts is to manifest the orange as copying what x is in form where the orange exists as an image of x.
In dividing an apple into 2,3,4,5...etc. pieces is to divide the apple into singular entities in themselves given each piece is equivalent to one. One cannot be observed on its own terms except through other ones thus necessitating each individual piece as empty in itself.
This can be seen in a line where the line cannot be observed except in relation to other lines which it both composes and is composed of.
Dually this same nature can be seen in 0, through a 0d point, where the point on its own terms cannot be observed given it is fundamentally nothing. The point is observed through its progression to another point with this progression resulting in the form of a line. In 0 progressing to 0 an equation of 0=0 occurs which is embodied spatially under the line. This 0=0 results in the first number of one given the line as a quantifiable entity begins the first act of quantifiable existence. One begins it equivocation to another one, as 1=1, when the line changes into another line through the 0d point.
Even then the point is only observed as the change from one line into another and as such is not so much a thing in itself but rather a mode of change
Thus 0=0 progresses to 1=1, as formlessness into form, where this equivocation is expressed under x=x given equality under the symbol of "=" occurs through a repetition of said phenomenon. Equality is only observed through repetition both in the actual state of the phenomenon itself as well as the more abstract notion of 1=1 where the equals sign is only defined through the repetition of 1.
Under one portion x=x is the equivocation of forms, i.e. 1=1, in another respect it is an equivocation of changes (formlessness), i.e. 0=0, thus necessitating x as a variable equivalent to both form and change.
One as intrinsically empty in itself can be observed under the line fundamentally as a sideways loop, given its beginning and end points are the same 0d point as 0=0, thus necessitating 1 contains zero much in the same manner a loop contains emptiness. This empty nature of 1=1 occurs through its equivalence to the variable of x=x which further equivocates 1 to 0 given both 1 and 0, through the number line, are equivalent to x=x.
In simpler terms the number 1 as an empty loop contains 0=0; thus 1 is a mode of change to further numbers given it cannot exist on its own terms due to its premise being grounded in the emptiness of zero. Zero cannot be observed on its own terms given it is nothing, and with the number 1 being grounded in this same nature it follows 0 as a mode of change given 1 must change into another 1 if it is to exist.
1 as empty is 1 as a mode of change to further 1. Form contains formlessness, as evidenced through the loop, and this formlessness is the means of change into another form.
1 is an empty loop evidenced by the line containing 0d points, because it contains other lines, and the fact the line contains both the same beginning and end points as the 0d point. 1 as an empty loop is 1 equating to 0 given all numbers change to further numbers, all ones change into further ones, due to their empty nature. The emptiness of 1 allows it to equate to 0 and the encapsulation of 0 allows it to equate to 1.
The manifestation of all numbers through the self referentiality of 1 being grounded in 0 further reflects itself across all systems of measurement considering they 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, one form changes into another.
This inversion of one form into another reflects the inversion of one set into another as both a fractal and fraction.
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 (i.e. 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 recursion, 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 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 progressive change of one form into another applies to numbers simultaneously.
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, this point is equivalent to 0.
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, this form equals 1.
7. The line is 0=0 as one point existing through another point. This 0=0, as x=x, is 1=1 where 1=1 is the line itself. ((0=0)=(1=1))=(x=x). 0 equals 1 through "x", 0 does not equal 1 except through the middle term of "x". 0 progresses to and equivocates to 1 through x with x being the totality of the line and points itself.
This act of inversion occurs within arithmetic as well where subtraction/addition and multiplication/division cycle between each other and are inseparable:
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 inseparable.
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 inseparable.
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 phenomenon 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 each other 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: "(...)".