Loops and Void

[Eodnhoj7]

XVI

The nature of consciousness is the awareness of forms where the form is imprinted on the psyche and inverted to a further form. The act of imprintation is observation, the changing of one imprint to another is the act of measurement. This is a progressive cycle. All that which is sensed is sensed through frequencies and wavelengths. As such all we observe is grounded in forms of an alternating lines and curves. Image, through form, is the grounding of all sensuous objects.
It is the nature of forms occurring through forms where each form is a phenomenon observed "as is". Form is observed as evident by existence alone much in the manner space is self-evident with all forms being derived from space. This inversion of one form to another, which sets the foundation for counting, and all measurement as label application by default, hence reasoning by further default, again reflects the dichotomy between what is abstract and what is empirical. This dichotomy occurs through abstractions being applied to empirical phenomenon and in turn empirical phenomenon setting the foundation for abstractions. It is the application of one dimension of being through another that necessitates a synthetic quality grounded in this dualism.
It is this dualism between the abstraction and physical that underlies a common middle context of "form" which binds reality together. Form is the synthetic median between what is abstract and empirical.
An example of this would be a house:
Does a house gain structure through the materials or the form? It is the form which binds the materials together with space acting as the glue which holds the house together. The house exists because of rectangles and triangles, not because of the wooden beams as these wooden beams are composed of shapes also. Matter is shape. We can see this replication of forms through the branching of the "Y" in trees, tree limbs, leaves, rivers, streams, veins, blood vessels, cracks in rock or soil, etc. Furthermore, this occurs in the wave form of the natural elements of wind, water, earth and fire (as gases, liquids, solids and plasma) all the way down to the movement of particles.
Under a unified version of the universe, where all exists as one, movement becomes static and is observed as only an approximation of the one. This movement is expressed through form, where form is a summation of movements.
For example, a car going about in circles shows a series of movements. From a separate time zone, where all movements exist as one, the cars movements appear as a static circle. These movements cannot occur excepting through a looping pattern through which they result. All potential movement, given a car driving in circles in actual time, is derived from a form which transcends all the movements...i.e. the loop in this case.
Movement exists through form, where form acts as the glue which holds reality together. Thus static forms are instrumental in determining the movements of the phenomenon. The car moves only because the loop exists, the car does not create the loop, the loop creates the movements of the car as the summation of different positions result in a form. Each movement of the car is an approximation, a part of, the loop through which it manifests. Simultaneously the parts of the car, as forms, are composed of moving particles which result in the static form of the car itself. All movements result in forms and movements composed of movements are forms composed of forms.
The same applies to a logical argument, does an argument gain structure through propositions or form? It is the form which binds the propositions together. The argument exists because of linearism (progression of one assertion to another), circularity (repetition of assertions) and the point of awareness it represents.
This form occurs through recursion, where one phenomenon repeats into another. A simple square as the repetition of lines is an example of this.
Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness. It occurs through the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness under a cyclic doubling, no nothingness or the voiding of void, allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "nothing". One state of being alternates into another with this alternation resulting in further alternation under the form of the loop.
This is a process of movement, therefore being is a series of movements within movements, with each movement existing as a time zone. A time zone is the summation of parts as a singularity which exist within a whole. It is the relation of parts moving to a potential unity or a fixed point in which a moving part exists as a ratio given the number of times it fits in a potential unity. For example a series of x rotations of a particle equates to one second as a summation of these rotations with each rotation being a fraction of their potential unity defined under the second. Each rotation is a movement within a series of movements that constitutes a whole. The unwinding of the circumference of these rotations results in a line, each movement as a fractal of another set of movements results the summation of these circumferences, as unwounded, as a series of lines within a line. Each rotation is a line and the totality of these rotations, as in x number of rotations within a given time period (second), results in time as one line within another. Time is a ratio of parts, the number of times one phenomenon fits within a fixed singular reference point. This ratio of time can be expressed through a line within a line.
In another example, water dripping from a roof is measured under the movements of a particle as seconds. The particle has x number of rotations or movements during the fixed measuring point of the water dropping. This particle may be the cesium atom or the movement of a celestial entity. The particle could be anything that exists as part of a greater whole. Each movement of a particle is a part of a series of movements with this series of movements being the unit of time itself. Each unit of time, as a ratio of spaces within spaces, necessitates time as a length with this intuitively referenced under the phrase “length of time”.
These particle's movements result in a form, in this case a line as time itself. A second is a series of revolutions of a particle existing as a series of circumferences. This series of circumferences acts as a series of lines considering the circumference unravels into a series of lines. The movements of a particle is a summation of forms, given all phenomenon are summated as simply being the movement of particles, with the many forms existing as variations of the same phenomenon such the length of time of a second being the microcosm of the hour. The second is a fractal of an hour and the hour is a fractal of the day, so on and so forth, as fractal lines within lines.
What we consider as movements is multiple lengths of space forming ratios as forms within forms, in this case the line within a line. The most basic rational form is that of the line. Time is a series of linear forms existing within linear forms, and as such is a ratio of spaces. Remember that each line is simultaneously a loop given its beginning and end are the same 0d point. The nature of lines within lines are lines containing the 0d point through a repetition of forms around this very same 0d point. It is this nature of spaces within spaces that time is composed of forms which supersede it. Time is ratiozation thus is not limited to an empirical means but exhibits itself through abstractions also.
These same ratios which form lines are the same linear ratios where a word, as a series of linear definitions, is composed of a further series of progressive definitions. One set of progressive definitions exists inside of another with each definition encapsulating an inherent emptiness of definition . Language shares this same finite nature as time itself thus abstractions are also subject to time. This finiteness is grounded in form as a limit which emerges from nothingness as both quantity and quality which encapsulates this nothingness be it multiple lines encapsulating the 0d point, a series of words encapsulating an absence of meaning, or the number 1 recursively encapsulating zero through another line through its looping into further numbers. Time is subject to underlying forms which guide it and these underlying forms that guide time guide other aspects of observation, and reality, by default.
All movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. The car can only drive in a circle if the form of the circle exists as a glue which holds the movements together. The same occurs through reasoning where the progression of one assertion to another results in a linear form.
Form is space which binds reality, thus space binds itself through space resulting in a self-referencing circularity. This same nature of form as glue occurs through reasoning where spatial axioms determine its nature: an argument exists because it is linear or circular. A progresses to B through a circular recursion of A into a new state and a linear voiding A into B.
All phenomena are thus grounded in the reoccurrence of forms: Take for example a square: □
Inversely the shape which space takes through the square is: ■
The form of the square, □, repeats itself through isomorphism as, ■, where ■ is not only the inverse of □ but is a summation of a series of infinite squares within each other which exists much like Russian Mirror Dolls.
Dually this isomorphism and recursion of space occurs through the 1d Line and 2d circle. A line on its side is a 1 dimensional representation of a 2 dimensional circle. Take a clock on its side an attach a light to one of the hands. On its side the light moves back an forth in the form of a line. The circle inverts into a line, the line inverts into a circle.
Within the line the alternation between points, such as the movement of a light from left to right and right to left on a clock hand put on its side, necessitates a single point as inverting from one projected direction to another, resulting in an isomorphism of directions. A line moving from left to right inverts to a line moving from right to left. Isomorphism, as the self-negation of one phenomenon into its polar opposite necessitates the first cyclical form with this cyclicality being the inversion of left to right and right to left continuously. This isomorphism begins with the dualism between the line and circle and manifests under a triadic nature as the point occuring recursively through both phenomenon. The line is the circle and the point, the circle is the line and the point, the point is the line and the circle. One form inverts into another and is repeated through the other thus necessitating a triadic nature as the causal form, the effectual form, and the summation of the causal and effectual form as form itself. In simpler terms the cause results in an effect, the effect is a cause, both the cause and the effect are grounded in the underlying forms in which they result.
This inversion of one point into another observes the first degree of replication of the point where this replication is the looping of said phenomena. This is isomorphic through the inversion of one into many. This is given since the beginning and end results in the same point of awareness or rather the same point. Dually, a line going in one direction, then another, shows the same 1d line repeating as well with the line repeating in all directions expressed under the nature of the circle. The repetition of one form resulting into another is the inversion of one form into another thus is isomorphic.
Inversion, as isomorphism, is self-negation. Self-negation is a loop which results in recursion as another loop. Recursion occurs through an inherent doubling with self negation, such as no nothingness or the voiding of void, resulting in said loop. Void cycles into being under isomorphism, with this cycle being “being” itself which results in further being through both the repetition of said being and the repetition of void negating void into being.
This alternation between isomorphism and repetition in itself is another loop as isomorphism repeats and recursion self-negates to isomorphism.
This alternation between thetical and antithetical states exists through looping as well. Looping thus follows its own nature, as being self evident through the variety of phenomena it manifests through, and is expressed linearly as well as circularly. The line and circle are two degrees of the same phenomenon observed from different angles, thus is subject to the point of view from which they originate.
This point of view begins with the point itself expressing itself dualistically through the line and circle as one and the same phenomenon. This point of awareness, between the line and circle, acts as a means of inversion between the phenomenon. The point inverting into another point, thus repeating, is the grounding of isomorphism and recursion. One point self-negates into another point. This point is the grounding of observation itself thus one state of observation negates into another.
This self-negation of the point results in it projecting in one direction as a line. Dually it results in a projection in all directions, at one time, as the circle. The point, specifically the point of awareness which begins with the point, acts as a means of inversion with this inversion being a repetition. It is the inversion of the point, into another point, which dually inverts into the repetition of the point. Isomorphism results in recursion and recursion results in isomorphism. The point, line and circle are 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 with isomorphism and recursion alternating between eachother. The point, line and circle are fundamentally spatial axioms as they define space and as expressed earlier in this book are the fundamentals of a reality which is defined as primarily spatial.
Space takes form through form. Form and space are inseparable. All is space through space and this recursion of space is form thus resulting in a meta-cycle as a meta-form.
What we understand of reality is forms which exist through forms and this form exists recursively and isomorphically producing further form. Form is movement, space is form, thus space is pure movement with movement being the change of one static form into another as one space into another space. This movement occurs through cycles when using the circle as a primary example:

1. A circle is intrinsically empty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is this replication and isomorphism of phenomena that deem its truth value as something is real based upon its ability to invert from one state to another and replicating across time. This is exhibited in basic programming under binary code and the inversion from 1 to 0 and the repetition of said 1 and 0. It it also expressed within the scientific method as the replication of results, where the hypothesis as unproven inverts into results which are proven. The habit, a series of repeated actions with one action inverting another, shares this same nature too. The replication of forms, and their inversion into other forms, necessitates a “symmetry as order” given that which has order contains repeated elements.
An example of this would be the replication of lines to form a square. The square is multiple lines superimposed on top of each other. It is one line repeated in many states. Another example is a car making a zigzag pattern. It results in the repetition of alternating lines from the perspective of a larger timezone where the movements of the car are summated under one form: the zig zag. This same zig-zag pattern occurs within the underlying frequencies which compose reality or the waves, as frequencies, which compose water in an ocean or the rising and falling of hills or even the outline of a fire. Another example of the universality of forms is in the branching pattern where the “Y” exists through arteries/veins/capillaries in the body, the branching of roots/branches/leaves within plant forms, the branching of streams/rivers/falling liquids, and lightning. One set of forms for one phenomena are superimposed upon a seemingly different phenomena. One form exists through many states.

[Eodnhoj7]

XVII

This origin of being as form is represented by the omnipresent point as the primordial symbol representing the origin of all things. All symbols and acts of quantification and qualification begin with the expression of the dot which gain there origin beginning with a single point in space. Even the formation of symbols themselves, through drawing or painting, begin with a single point as a dot.
It is the replication of the point which necessitates it as undergoing a cycle through recursion. The progression of one point to another is the progression away from an origin back to its origin.
This cycling through repetition necessitates the circle as a symbol of maintenance representing the repetition of phenomena that gives precedence to order. That which repeats exists through a symmetry across time and space much like a habit that gives identity, repetition is symmetry and symmetry is being. We deem something as true based upon its ability to replicate, be it one's character through habit, scientific truths or the replication of lines to form a rectangle. Replication is order, repetition is cyclical, thus order is cyclical.
This inversion of one point to another is thus represented by the line. Symbolically it represents intelligence, under the nature of analysis, where one phenomenon breaks down into another phenomenon and progresses to another with each phenomenon being an origin for another. This progress from one phenomena through another shows all phenomena as connected by an inherent middle phenomena which expands across the phenomena. An example of this is one line inverting into another line with both lines equivocating through the single line through which both lines equivocate. Thus the line, representing intelligence, dually shows the connection of phenomena.
Truth is form and form is "existence", with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being in the same manner many forms expand and contract from a single point. This center point can be called "God", with the circumference around this point, under the circle, represents the range of being which extends from and through the "Creator". This center point may also be observed as “the origin”. This Creator is both subjective and objective, personal and impersonal. The recursive nature of being necessitates a personal God exists in the respect the nature of man, as an image thus approximation of God, mandates a common bond at the individual level to the God through this fractal nature. The impersonal nature of God is the variation of man from its respective source through this very same fractal nature.
Man is personally connected to the Creator in the respect man is made in the Image of God much in the same way a fractal is an approximation of a previous source. This fractal nature is the point manifesting itself through further points and this is grounded in the nature of observation. Man assumes through an intrinsic emptiness equated to the point of view, this point of view and this point is fundamentally empty. This universal point of view, embodied under the single point, inverts from one point, the origin or God, into another point, that of the image or man . This recursion of the points is the self reflection of one point into another with the point being the beginning of observation given all observation is grounded in emptiness The intrinsic emptiness at the core of observation is the reflection of the primordial nothingness which is God as nothingness is beyond being and as such is beyond temporality and underlies everything thus sharing by definition a nature to that of God.
This image is in the fractal nature of man which necessitates a common symmetry between the Source and the created with this symmetry being in the ability to observe patterns and form them. Man’s awareness, as grounded in the ability to measure, is the ability to create distinctions with the distinction being the act of creation and destruction itself. For example in separating a sheep from a herd a new category is created, that of the individual sheep, while the herd is negated. One phenomenon, that of the herd, exists and this phenomenon is broken down into a different state, that of the individual sheep. In observing a phenomenon the phenomenon changes and this change is the construction of a new phenomenon and a destruction of a prior. This change is the act of distinction and this distinction is individuation. Individuation is the manifestation of one singular state into a variation of itself into a new singular state thus is similar to the making of fractals. A herd broken down to an individual sheep is the manifestation of fractals.
It is the ability to create distinctions that mirrors itself where that which makes distinctions distinguishes itself into a new form which makes further distinctions. God results in Man, Man results in the robot. Not only does one act of distinction manifest itself into a new distinction but the distinguisher manifests itself into a new distinguisher.
This act of distinguishing distinguishment is a mirroring process with this mirroring process being the act of replication. This replication is the maintenance of the old through the variation of the new thus is a process of perpetual renewal. The nature of measurement is thus a process of renewal where the man as measurer is the creator renewing itself through the nature of self-measurement as self-reflection. One phenomenon distinguishes itself through another with this new phenomenon as a variation being an image of the prior, in this case the one phenomenon being God and the other man.
The process of measurement manifests itself into a new process of measurement with this focal point of measurement being the act of observation itself thus the manifestation of one observer into another. One measurement manifests itself into another therefore one observer manifests into another.
This act of measurement is the act of definition with definition being the convergence and divergence of points of view given all that which is measured does so through a subjective state observing a phenomenon from a given angle and the alignment of these multiple angles being the objective state through which one object is observed under a multitude of states.

[Eodnhoj7]

XVIII

It is the convergence and divergence of points (of view) within philosophy, from a single point (of awareness) that gives a deeper analysis to the nature of definition. This deeper analysis, grounded in the simple convergence and divergence of the point, further grounded in its nature under the point of view stemming from a singular point, reflects all truth as being expressed through geometric forms. These geometric forms, as representing all of being, are grounded in the relationships of points with these points being the grounding of the nature of observation.
It is the progression of one point to many which results in the same point again as infinite points thus one point of observation results in a multitude of observations therefore manifesting observation as an infinite process. Definition thus occurs through a continuous state given observation itself is continuous.
Just like 1 point takes the same form as an infinite number of points (insert image) , so definition takes the same manner in reasoning. As rationality increases so do the division of assertions until the division of assertions results in a state of obscurity as too many assertions. It is the medial point between one and to many assertions which results in the most accurate rationality being composed of the forms which lie in between. Rationality, as the connection of assertions as points of view, is grounded in forms given one point is defined by its connection to another. This rationality of forms is geometric. One can see this geometry in the nature of assumption itself as points of view which cycle and progress to other points of view. The multitude of points of view, as interrelated, results in both a cycle and a line in both form and function.
One assumption is broken down into so many assumptions, that any form of rationale begins to take the same form as the original assertion thus becoming an assertion again. This is a paradox of definition, as things become more defined they become less defined as a result.
The failure of definition in philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. It is the absence of self referentiality in philosophy which causes its problems. To add further paradox to paradox the foundations of philosophy, under metaphysics as "being qua being", observes this recursive nature of self assuming forms as inherent within its nature yet ignored.
This nature of definition is grounded within a variation of the Munchausen Trilemma where:
1. All being exists as assumed through a process of imprinting upon what is formless. This imprint can be on the subconsciousness or it may be the imprint of something of form, such as a rock, onto something else which is formless such as sand. All being exists through a process of imprinting which allows for the phenomena to exist as repeating through time.
2. Infinite regress occurs through an ever changing "now", where "now" acts as the perpetual means, between future and past, as the change of phenomenon. The past or future respectively regresses or progresses to another past or future event through the "now".
3. The continual circularity of phenomenon occurs through the replication of the phenomenon across time. One thing repeating, such as a particle repeating itself across space through time or a thought within the mind’s eye, is the cycling of a phenomena.

Considering all of philosophy begins with propositions, which are assumed, the failure in acknowledging propositions as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole which regresses back to the paradoxical "point" of it: "the point".
Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This could not be falser, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where form, through assumption, is first and foremost.
The continual regression of assumptions leads to all facts broken down to exist as atomic facts. These atomic facts, as points of observation, are reduced to further points of observation.
The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction given the point of awareness, as a boundless formless space, is the recursion of one point of view into another point of view as an empirically observed point particle or more abstract atomic fact. One observed phenomenon acts as a point of view which continues into another point of view with this point of view revolving around observable points.
This recursion and isomorphism of points necessitates that when determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective. This point of awareness can begin with any assertion as the point of awareness underlies all phenomena through recursion.
Paradoxically there are no formal rules for deciding the starting point within the act of analysis other than the inversion of one perspective to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.
This leaves "isomorphism" and "recursion" as universal principles embodied through an ever-present context of awareness. The convergence and divergence of phenomena into points necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Abstractions and empirical senses are intuitively directed to a center point continuously.
Thus the most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern from a point of view" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed from my point of view" with the point of view being the empty context through which we observe reality under a continual imprinting.
It is the assumption and resumption of patterns that reflect "comprehensibility" as the ability to connect assumed patterns through prior patterns we already assumed. Yet "comprehensibility" is the dual to "incomprehensibility". What is well defined and clear is made so in order to break the definition down into something unclear and vague. Clarity occurs through the relation of multiple parts, unity is vagueness as the absence of a defining other. However, with the increase in parts comes an increase in vagueness as the phenomena reflects a singular amorphous mass.
In making terms simple they become complicated. In making things complicated they become simple. The act of definition is thus grounded in a revolution between one and many terms where something is broken apart and put back together. Philosophy, science and religion through reason are thus alchemical, this alchemy is the convergence and divergence of points as the putting together and tearing apart of definition. It is the creation and recreation of definitions which causes philosophy, and eventually reason for that matter, to crumble under the gravity of terms alone. What defined one assumption, through another, eventually becomes a series of assumptions which causes the meaning of the original assumption to fall apart as a vagueness through multiplicity occurs.
Assertions are the summation of relations between parts. Under this definition all word creation, as the summation of relations between words, differs little from assertion creation; both principles and words are the application of boundary to a previously formless mass of phenomena, this boundary is the connection of phenomena through their relations where one phenomenon is broken down into many relative parts. It is the relation of parts which allows the one to be defined through the many.
1.There is no assertion defining how to make an assertion, beyond this aforementioned alchemy of thought.
2. Assertion creation is not subject to any further assertion without referring back to an inherently empty assertion.
3. “There is no assertion defining how to make an assertion” is an assertion which is empty thus dependent upon further assertions.
Thus what we understand as an objective assertion is a group assertion or the projection of some self-reflected thought. It is the alignment, as symmetry or matching of subjective states, under a recursive common bond where the subjective state repeats. In simpler terms, a group of people see something which reflects across their subjective experiences as common and this in turn allows for objectivity; dually the self observes itself from multiple points of view contained within itself thus causing a connection between points of view that results in a structure.
This group alignment of points of view, necessitating objectivity, reflects geometrically as an alignment of points (of view) considering the same emptiness of the point in geometry mirrors the assumptive nature of the mind as empty of thought. The connection of points of view, through objective group agreement, or self-reflection, is the formation of multiple points of view into a form. This form of connected viewpoints is not only an object but a phenomenon in itself given the connection of these viewpoints summates into a new singular phenomenon in itself. Geometry, as the observation and study of space, is an ever present medium. Even the act of measurement itself, through counting, is grounded in spatial forms.
Numbers are a means for quantifying reality.
This quantification requires counting, where one phenomenon is separated from another or united: In counting 2 oranges we unite them into one set in one respect while observing that 1 orange exists in a variety of states as 2 oranges in a separate respect.
Numbers do not exist without counting, and the most basic form of counting is observing symbols.
The most basic countable symbol is the point. This is considering all empirical phenomena exist as a point at a distance or are composed of points up close (ie jagged edges converging to a point in curves). Also it is a universal axiom that represents space and we use intuitively to measure time. The paradox of counting the point reflects in it being a zero-dimensional entity thus to quantify the point is to reduce zero to a multiple of one therefore equating one to zero. This contradicts standard mathematics.
The point is effectively just "space". You cannot separate counting from this basic assumption. Counting is grounded in the observation of space with the division of one space through another resulting in space. Space results in space as space, counting and labeling is thus the tearing of space as the reformation of space.
It is the converging and diverging of points, be it a point of view or point particle, which results in forms which mirror this same nature as the point, of which they are composed, in the respect the same phenomenon which is composed of points is reducible to a point in itself.
Definition is rooted in a series of points which converge and diverge. In turn these phenomena are the summation of forms into a single point as an abstract "perspective" or empirical "particle". Either way these summations result in a "point". It is the alternation between converging and diverging forms that philosophy lies within a dualism between obscurity and lucidity under this alternation between "oneness" and "manyness". The one and the many is an observation of space occuring through space.
It is through this dualism that obscurity and lucidity synthesize into "as is-ness". At best philosophy, and the sciences and religions by proxy, can provide definition that is strictly assumed. This definition is "as-is" and is purely existence alone. This "as-isness" is a series of phenomena which are defined within a phenomenon with this summation being a self-referential loop through what it contains where the phenomena itself is define by that which composes it and that which composes it is defined as through its reference to other parts. The whole self-references through the loop of parts which are empty in themselves except through their relationship to another.
For example, the variable of B is composed of A self-referencing into a new form, the parts of a dog (such as legs, teeth and hair) self-referencing into a new form such as a cat, or 3 being composed of 1 added together self-referentially. Rationality is fundamental a spiral represented by loop creation. This loop creation is the recursion of phenomena that paradoxically results in a progressive variation.
Under these terms all being is connected by context alone where context is a singular entity which acts as a variable considering it is both one phenomenon and composed of a series of phenomena as one phenomenon. This context is a loop considering it is composed of a variety of phenomena repeating in newer and newer variation.
These loops as contexts, as a universal phenomenon, break down to a hyper primitive underlying logic which can mean just about anything due to a problem of syntax. Context inverting to an opposing symmetrical context, and then repeating, leaves no real syntax for understanding the underlying rules for any logical argument other than principles of isomorphism and recursion which can be applied to just about anything.
The only syntax is form, and this form is a progressive loop. This looping begins within basic arithmetic but reflects elsewhere. For example, all arithmetic foundations are tautological and circular:
1. The subtraction of subtraction is addition:
(-1-1=-2)=(-1+-1=-2)

2. Division is further the subtraction of subtraction, as the number of times x may be subtracted until point zero is reached:
(6/3=2) = (6-3-3=0)

3. The addition of addition, as multiplication, is the number of times x may be added to together:
(3×2=6) = (2+2+2=6)

The only syntax rule is a circularity, yet syntax rules would require a regress outside the rules where the rules would have to be defined by a set of unjustified rules beyond it. This is a variation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, in simple terms, states all rules are defined by an outside set of rules which are undefined.
However, if syntax is to be grounded in circularity the rules would have to be self-referencing, and a context within context observes this given a context within a context observes context as a repeatedly circular phenomenon. Circularity, through repetition, is self referentiality.
The framework would have to be descriptive by nature considering all definition is loop creation and description alone is the foundation of any rational endeavor. At best a logical system describes a phenomenon, with this description being the peak of the truth value. Description defines description self referentially given definition can be defined through definition with this loop necessitating that description and definition alone are fundamentally assumed “as is”. A phenomenon exists through the limits which form it and these limits are assumed strictly for what they are as limits. These limits are the foundation of definition.

[Eodnhoj7]

XIX
This descriptive nature again would be a loop where what is defined is a cycling between subject and object. The subject defines the object and the object in turn defines the subject. One phenomenon describes the other. An example of this would be a person and a chair. The subject, the person, observes the object, the chair, and moves its position in time and space. The chair is now in a different position and as in a different position causes the subject to change positions as they sit in it. The subject/object dichotomy creates a third phenomenon, the person sitting in the chair, and results in the loop: the person is sitting in x position, and x position is where the person is sitting. The subject and object both define each other through the negation of the differences between subject and object derived fundamentally through a circular connection between subject and object. The subject/object dichotomy becomes a self-referential loop where one defines the other.
As self-referencing all phenomena would be subject to double positives and double negative simultaneously, as both are self-referential loops by nature. Double positives lead to a negative, and double negatives lead to a positive. One rule is an isomorphism of the other, with both being grounded in a proof through contradiction whose self referentiality under double positives or double negatives lies in recursion.
Double negatives are the foundation for all math and logic.
-1-1=-2 results in the first act of addition where addition results from self-reference of negative numbers as subtraction. Addition is the subtraction of subtraction.
(-P→ -P)→ P occurs simultaneously in logic, where negative P and negative P negate into positive P with P, considering -P cannot occur without +P.
Dually double positives occur: The repetition of positives necessitates a negative.
This occurs within the basic number line:

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


1 and 1 necessitate 2 when counting it on a number line.


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

The same occurs for the difference between a positive 1 and positive 3...a negative 2.


The same occurs for 3 and 7 as -4

So, a positive and a positive requires a variation of the original positive into grades, with the grades as different due to a separation necessitating antithetical or negative elements. An example using the number line would be you have 3 progressing to 7. 7 is a variation of 1, thus when it goes from 7 to 1 (right to left just like the negative number line) you have -4 as super positioned within the positive number line.
Another example, previously stated:
"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."
((G)G)→(-G)

If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts. Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil". Good in a state of multiple degrees shows Good as being intrinsically negated, thus a positive (or thesis) as directed towards another positive (thesis) results in its antithetical nature.
The rule of double positives and double negatives are grounded in self referentiality, much in the same manner the voiding of void results in the Big Bang and the contradiction of contradiction results in the Principle of Explosion. This occurs as well under the “assumption of assumption” (through metaphysics as "being qua being") results in the form of all knowledge as we see fit. All knowledge is the assumption of an assumption with this assumable nature referencing itself into further tautologies.
Double negatives and double positives self referentially alternate between each other:

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


(A→ A)→(B ↔ -A)
The "cat is the cat" therefore "b" type of "cat" exists if and only of a "not cat" exists. This necessitates "b" type of "cat" existing considering one being progresses to a type of that being through a regression with "b" being what is "not a cat". For example, "bengal" or "wild" is a phenomenon which is not limited to cat, yet is a description of it, thus is a phenomenon through which "not cat" is produced through the regression.

-A→A→(B ↔ -A)
The "not cat" necessitates "cat" as existing therefore "b" type of "cat" exists if and only if "not cat" exists. The "cat" as existing necessitates a type of "cat" as existing. This type of "cat" existing necessitates a phenomena, as the type, existing which is "not cat".

[Eodnhoj7]

XX


It is in this nature of regression of context to another context that a primitive underlying logic occurs. Cycling back to the question of syntax, in determining the validity of rules behind logic, we are left with syntax occurring through loops with these loops being contexts which mean both one and many things thus acting as variables.
____________________________________________________________
That which is defined is defined by its relationship to another, thus one thing describes another and that which is described describes that which describes it. In simpler terms the act of description alone in turn gives meaning to the description as a phenomenon in itself. That which describes and that which is described form a circularity between the two where each phenomenon acts as a variable in that it represents something else. The word represents the object and the object represents the word.
This relationship between that which is described and the describer results in a seperation between the two where one phenomenon is a mirror image of another as a variation of said phenomenon. One context results in another. All truth, existing "as is", is strictly just context with this “as-isness” being expressed under a form. This form is a loop which exists through its contrast to further loops.
In determining a syntax for the rules of a logical system, derived from context alone, leaves us with a very general logic which can mean just about anything as it underlies everything. Contrast is the primary entity in determining that which is defined and that which is not defined. This contrast is the relationship of one context to another where one context acts as the backdrop through which another context is compared.
A logic describing everything would paradoxically mean just about nothing...at least almost nothing, as it still models the most basic nature of logic, that of description. This description is strictly the expression of form and as such constitutes identity. This identity is a context as a relationship of parts. The identity of a context is that which points to a phenomenon. As such a context such as (P) derives its identity by pointing to said phenomenon such as a “cat” or “house”. Under these terms the variation of one context to another, for example “blue house” or ((H)B) is the direction of one context to another. A statement such as “The cat ate the bird” observes the context “cat” directed to another context “bird” through another context of “ate”. One context is directed to another through a medial context which directs them: ((C)A→)(B) . It is through the direction of one context to another that contexts multiply, ie “cat” and “bird” (C)(B), allowing for a contrast to occur which allows for definition.
So, in forming this basic logic, considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be ones revolving around context:
"(x)" for "context".

"((x)y)" for "context of contexts" or “context within a context” as a modality or a context which describes another context. This modality, as a fraction of the original context, is divisive by nature, much in the same manner a fraction is divisive, considering this context is part of a prior context.

(x)(y) for “context transitioning to another context” as in the original context is multiplying to a new context. One context, or set of contexts, change into another thus multiplying the original context(s) through new contexts. Each context, as fundamentally empty, multiplies itself through its progression to a new context.

"(x)y→)" for "transitional context" or the transition of one context to another through a basic action expressed linguistically under the verb. One context acts as a means of transition to another context. This transitional context as descriptive, considering it is a set of actions which define the prior context, and shares the same form of “((x)y)”. This context is empty in itself and as empty acts as the variation of one context into a newer form through its transition. This transition is a context in itself.


A simple statement: “The cat eats cat food” would be expressed as:
((Cat)eats→) ((Food)Cat)

Or "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:
((((Cat)eats→)((Food)Cat))Therefore→) (((We)Bought→)((Food)Cat))

Or “It rains in November”:
(((It)rains→)November)

Or: "The sky is blue"
((Sky)is→)(Blue) or ((Sky)Blue)

Dually the “and”, “or” and “if” functions show the relationship of contexts as well:

“(X,Y)” observes the “and” function such as “The cat and dog ate the food” and would be described as: ((Cat,Dog)Ate→)(Food). This “and” function applies also to addition.

"((X))((Y))" observes the “or” function such as “The cate or the dog ate the food” and would be described as: ((((Cat))((Dog)))Ate→)(Food).

"(X)↔(Y)" observes “if” function such as “The cat ate the food if the cat is full” and would be described as: (((Cat)Ate→)(Food))↔((Cat)Full)



Math is also contextual. This occurs for the following examples:

A.1+2=3
(((+1)+2→)→) (+3) or ((1,1)→)(2)

((+1)+2→) observes 2 transfer over to 1 where +2 is a transitional context. This would be equivalent to saying plus 2 is the action of 1 transferring to a new state. The action of adding 2 in turn defines 1 thus the action of addition is an action of transference. This transference of 1 through 2 observes 1 as being defined through 2.
(((+1)+2→)→) (+3) observes the summation of the transference of +2 to +1 transfer to another context of 3. This would be equivalent to saying 1+2 equivocates to the context of 3. Equivocation as an action is transference thus observing ((+1)+2→) as a transitional context. One context transfers to another with this transference transferring to a new context. The act of transference itself, one context through another, is in itself a context.

B.2-1=1
(((+2)-1→)→) (+1) or ((2,-1)→)(1)
This example observes the same as above except where a positive 2 is transferring through 1 under addition, a negative 1 is transferring through 2 with this transference of context in turn transferring over to a positive 1 which symbolizes the summation of -1 and 2 equivocating to 1


C.2x3=6
(((+2)(+3))→) (+6)
((+2)(+3)) observes the same formula as the above two examples except +2 exists through a multiplication of +3. One context results in another context thus multiplies the original context. ((+2)(+3)) observes (+2) as multiplied through (+3) where one context multiplies through another. This can be expressed under (x)(y) where (y) is the multiplication of (x).


D.4÷2=2
(((+4)+2)→) (+2)
((+4)+2) observes the same formula for the above three examples except it is division. +2 is within the context of +4 thus necessitating it as a fraction of +4. As a fraction of +4 it is divisive by nature. One context as part of another context is one context as dividing that context considering it exists within that context as a part much in the same way the number that divides another is in itself a series of parts which compose said number.

E. The distributive property can be observed as 3x(2+3)=(3x2)+(3x3) where: (((+3)((+2)+3→))→) (((+3)(+2))((+3)(+3))→ )
F. The associative property can be observed as 4+(5+3)=(4+5)+3=12 where: (((+4)((+5)+3→)→)→) ((((+4)+5→)+3→)→) (+12)
G. The commutative property can be observed as 1+2=2+1 where: (((+1)+2→)→) ((+2)+1→)
H. The identity property can be observed as 1+0=1 and 2x1=2 where: (((+1)0→)→) (+1) and (((+2)(+1))→) (+2) respectively.
In observing a simple equation of 1=1 the equation would be expressed through an arithmetic sequence given "→" can mean such a variety of things and would be solely defined by its relative placement to other "→" signs. "→" both means equivocation and an arithmetic function dependent upon its placement within the equation. In defining a simple equation such as 1=1 the identity properties would be applied. In expressing identity, the equations are inseparable from arithmetic:
(((1)(1))→) (1) or (((0)1→)→) (1)


All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature. This is considering inference and implication shows what may occur therefore it would be expressed as modalities. That which may occur is that which defines the phenomenon under a potential state considering that which may occur is a description of said phenomenon through a potentiality. All modalities are fractions and fractals of the said phenomenon being described and share this same nature to that of implication in the respect both are descriptive.
A modality, as descriptive, is a fractal by nature considering what is expressed is one context existing as a part of another as an extension of it. For example, the modality of “Britain” in the sentence “The ship exists in Britain” shows the position of the ship as a defining factor of the ship which exists as part of the ship itself. That which defines exists as a part of, as an extension of, that which is being defined therefore is a reflection of the original phenomenon itself. The act of inference and implication dually show the potentiality of a phenomenon therefore defining what is actual by what is potential. “it may rain later because of the clouds in the sky” defines the day through the clouds with the clouds being connected to a further phenomenon of rain. The day is defined by its potential relationship to the rain.
Under these respects all acts of implication and inference, under this very basic system of logic, are expressed in the same manner as a modality:

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

The logic is primitive yet represents the underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry where forms result in further forms.
This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time considering each basic variable, which forms the proposition, exists as a finite entity thus is a part of the timeline itself. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line or a series of rings within rings:

(((C)A→)J)(B)

It is in breaking down any definitive statement into a geometry where the rules become so general they can mean just about anything. Cycling back to the paradox of definition priory stated, with the increase in definition in one respect comes the complete absence of it in another.
Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not. The word or symbol for "dog" is the repetition of "dog" into a newer form as the symbol or word. The word "dog" is not a "dog" yet both equivocate. This necessitates equivocation as occurring between seemingly separate phenomenon that of the symbol and that which the symbol points towards.
It is this problem of equivocation where 1 can equate to either a jet or a horse thus a seemingly equal 1 equivocates to two different phenomena thus causing an inequality within the symbol of 1. All things possess an equality through a middle term, in this case 1, yet the degree and quality to which the middle terms exist shows disparities within the phenomena. The horse and jet may equivocate through having similar features such as visual ports (windows for jet and eyes for the horse), tubing (veins in horse and piping within the jet) and a general frame (bones for horse, metal beams for jet) yet these equivalent phenomena diverge into seemingly separate phenomena through the middle terms which connect them. Another example is the equation of 2+2=1+3 where 2+2 and 1+3 equivocate through the common form of 4 which connects them yet both 2+2 and 1+3 are different expressions of said form. 2+2 and 1+3 may equivocate yet are not the same phenomena.
In equivocating one phenomena through a series of repeating similarities these similarities diverge from the middle term which equates them. The middle term both causes a convergence of the definitions through a common form and a divergence of definitions through the emptiness of the very same form.
Under these premises 1 is both equal to and not equal to 1 as 1 can equivocate to a horse and jet simultaneously, thus unequal, yet the ability for both phenomena to connect as singular entities through the recursion of common features still necessitates 1 as equal to itself. This is considering 1 horse and one jet necessitate both phenomenon as equivocating to each other through one. This equivocation, through the middle term of one necessitates seemingly separate and distinct phenomenon as having common bonds. For all intents and purposes this common phenomenon amidst all phenomena is the loop as priory discussed. All acts of description simultaneously defines and undefines a phenomenon through equivocation where what is equivocated is simultaneously unequal in a different respect. Equivocation is thus dualistic and contradictory by nature yet it is this contradiction which allows for the distinction of the phenomenon through a point of change.
The same applies to any formal system of logic considering all symbols must equivocate to another phenomena or to another symbol. It is contradictory by its own nature of description considering the equivocation of one thing to another necessitates a simultaneous difference much in the same manner a symbol for a “dog” may equivocate to a “dog” yet the dog is not the symbol and the symbol is not the dog. However the formal system still exists considering equivocation still occurs. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.
The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic and reality, this form is expressed through symbols and their linear or circular progression.
The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying center point from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it considering any description of language in turn occurs through language yet this description of describing language points to a phenomenon beyond the language itself. In simpler terms language in describing language always points to something beyond language as that which defines this self referentiality through a separate vantage point. This phenomena beyond the language is the loop or the forms which underlie all of existence. Yet this looping form which exists beyond language in turn loops back to language as being described by it. In forming any higher language, it would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing language again. This pointing of language to language again references a point of observation which exists outside of language itself.
In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it. The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon directed to another.
The vowels of AEIOU, progress from one symbol to another as evidenced by the sounds they make. AE, EE, IE, OE, YOO shows the inversion of one sound into another sound where each one observes a fluid type of movement changing into another fluid movement. One tone is flat and is following by a rising and falling of the tone.
The same occurs for progressive counting in Roman numerals where one symbol points to another symbol, as a set of symbols, as a symbol in itself. Dually the actual form of the symbols is the line existing recursively through a tautology which is observed by the successive variation of the multitude and positions of the line:
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.
When looking at the origin of symbols we must look at the most basic symbol itself, the point: •
This point progresses to form the line: ----
From which curves are derived; C, G, J, etc. From these curves all following symbols find their grounding.
The origins of symbols progress from a single formless point to a flat or curved base both physically, as in the expression of the symbol itself, as well as the flat to rising and falling tones the symbol makes verbally. The basic expression of symbols, graphically or verbally as tones, is lines and curves. These lines and curves, as expressed in an infinite variety of ways, act as variables given, they not only represent a range of phenomenon but act as the underlying composition of said phenomenon. The curve both defines the symbol itself as well as the phenomenon it is pointing too. The line and the curve, as underlying all symbols, means both one and many things and are defined by their relationships to other lines and curves.
Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad, under the circumpunct symbol “⊙”, with all abstract and empirical phenomenon being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal by summating it all under one symbol. However, in summating all existence under one symbol a paradox in ambiguity occurs given such a general symbol representing everything effectively represents nothing as it can equivocate to anything without any distinction other than being presenting itself in contrast to nothingness through an emergence.
Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is.
If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation. To assume is its own foundation
Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording. This giving of pure form can be expressed as:

Assumption = •
Progression of assumptions = →
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. This is an assumption:
•

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption, this is an assumption:
(• → •)•

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself, this is an assumption:
(•⊙•)•

4. This is an assumption of assumption:
(•)•

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle and this in itself is an assumption. This totality is an assumption:
((• → •)• → (•⊙•)•)•
6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle as an assumption in itself. This totality is an assumption:
((• → •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•)•

7. This is a progress of assumptions. This is an assumption:
((•)•)•

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed:
(→)•

9.Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive this is assumed:
((→)• → (→)•)•

10. This assumption of multiple progressions is circular and is assumed:
(⊙)•

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption. This totality is assumed:
((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•

12. This argument is assumed and defined as self-referential but open to expansion. It is both complete and incomplete as assumed:
•

In mapping logic, at it most basic form of being strictly assumptions, we break down logic to a dualism of context (mentioned prior) and assumptions. This is with assumptions being contexts and contexts being assumptions. This contrast between assumption and context is artificial as it enables a definition to come forth from the emptiness of assumption itself. In simpler terms the contrast allows for form and the form allows for definition.
This is considering all contexts are assumed and all assumptions are contexts of understanding. There is nothing which separates the two other than contextual logic being derived strictly through the manifestation and transference of contexts while assumptive logic is the manifestation of assumptions through assumptions.
This recursive nature of context through context and assumption through assumption necessitates logic as being broken down strictly to the repetition of the most basic elements which form it. This repetition allows for form. This can be observed further in binary code, such as 1’s and 0’s, but differs little in that it requires recursion at its most basic level. Logic therefore becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything, with this meaning being grounded in form alone as the relation of one context to another or one assumption to another.
It is the position of the symbols which lends itself to the variability necessary for its meaning with this variability derived solely from form, and this form being derived by the relation of one form, the symbol, to another form, the symbol, as a form in itself, the set of forms. Logic is form(s) through form(s) as form(s). Form as having multiple meanings is form as a variation of meanings thus a variable. This leads to a question of “what is a variable?”.

[Eodnhoj7]

XXI

This nature of form, which underlies all of logic, exists as variables by nature considering all forms represent a series of other forms. This nature of one form representing another form points to a paradox as to what a variable is and is not.

1. All assumptions are variables, as they represent general statements considering they reflect a distinction from other phenomenon as the apex of multiple phenomenon relating.
2. A cat is a variable, as it is composed of other types of cats. So is a tree. So is the word "word".
3. If I assume an experience, I assume a generalized state of things (sensations, emotions, thoughts) that are composed of particulars that are not being observed. For example, the experience of touching a table does not take into account how it was formed, the actual atomic movements or its place in the future, these assumptions are strictly images or forms produced which based upon the connection of prior experiences which are assumed.
4. All logical symbols, as such, act as variables. They are composed of other symbols and compose other symbols. They are generalities of transition, with each symbol as fundamentally empty being transitory to another symbol.
5. Each variable as a generality, is a particular which composes another generalized state; thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. This necessitates it as a function of transition to another variable, thus all variables are inversive by nature in the respect one variable Inverts to another.
For example, +1 is a generality. However, it is a particular which composes +1+1=2, +1+2=3, +2+3=+5...etc. Thus it is a transitive state in itself considering it is always inverting from one state to another. +1 is always transitioning into more complex variations of itself, thus is continually inversive from one state to another.
6. Each variable as a particular, is a generality which exists in multiple states and is repeated; thus each variable is strictly is an inherent middle as underlying context of another context. This necessitates is as a form of transition to another variable, thus all variables are recursive by nature.
For example, +1 as a particular is dually a generality as it is composed of +10 - 9, +11 - 10, etc. It is composed of an infinite number of particulars and as such is an underlying form of many transitive states. +1 is always present as an underlying form of continuity due to its repetition through multiple states.
7. All assumptions as both form and functions are inherently variables that necessitate an underlying order that manifests spontaneously and as random through a continual variation of the same thing. Logic is spontaneous considering it is grounded in assumptions.
Statements such as A=A or 1+1=2 are fundamentally random given they can equate to a variety of phenomena. A=A can mean anything, with "A" = "Anything" necessitating all phenomena are subject to equivocation while 1+1=2 being the quantity of any phenomena such as a dot, to a horse, to oranges, to the number of words in a sentence. However, they are ordered as self- referencing contexts through recursion where A=A observes A as repeated as well as 1 and 1 through 2.
8. Logic and math are thus always indefinite and definite at the same time as all variables are simultaneously generals and particulates. This same nature applies to philosophy where any answer is best defined "as is".

It is the nature of the dualism between general and particulate, vagueness and clarity, where philosophy's (and all of reason and rational endeavors by default} "as is-ness" is the primary basis of its truth value. All assertions break down to variables which act as transition states to further variables. It is this transitory nature which grounds the variable as a mode of analysis, due to this progression. Each variable is a distinction of being in contrast to another being or nothingness and it is this contrast which sets the premise for a variable being an expression of an “emergence”, or that which emerges. It is this emergence which sets the premise for this distinction as a process of individuation where the variable acts as a mode of change. This change is grounded in the analysis, made by the observer, where anything which is observed acts as an individual entity that acts as a point of change from one phenomenon to another.
The analysis of a phenomenon is the breaking down of the phenomenon into different parts. Each set of parts is a variation of the original part from which it is broken down. All empirical phenomenon are parts of other phenomenon, thus are particles. All abstract phenomenon, such as a series of propositions, are parts of other phenomenon thus are particles as well. Given both empirical and abstract phenomenon occur in parts they behave as particles (ie a "part" of something):

1. A particle moves from point A to point B or from one definition to another.
2. This movement of the particle is the inversion from one position to another position or one set of relative definitions to another.
3. The inversion from one position to another or one set of definitions to another is the replication of the particle across space or the replication of the definition across the empty space of the assumptive mind.
4. All movement is the manifestation of fractions/fractals of the distance between point A and point B or sub definitions as parts of further definitions.
5. A particle is the distance it travels from one position to another; thus a particle is movement. A definition is the series of definitions it contains as the string of definitions between one definition and another.
6. This movement is a series of particles summated as one particle; this is considering each position of the particle is a new particle itself. Each change of definition is a series of definitions summated as one definition. Each position amidst a series of further definitions is a new definition itself.
7. A particle is a series of positions; this series of positions necessitates the particle as the distance between point A and point B. A definition is a series of positions between other definitions where the definition is the string between one definition and another.
8. A particle is a series of lengths within lengths all defined by its movement, the particle is thus a series of linear ratios as lines within lines. A definition is a series of strings within strings all manifesting by its change from one string to another. Each string is a linear ratio as a line within a line.
9. The particle as a distance between point A and B is the particle as a series of replicating forms. The definition as a string between one definition and another is the definition as a series of replicating from
10. This replication of forms is each particle as a length or definition string that is a fraction/fractal of another length or definition string.
11. The particle is point A to point B existing as fractions/fractals of point A to point B. The definition is one definition to another as fractions of both these definitions.
12. A particle is a line as it is the distance of movement, movement is replication, replication is the manifestation of one point as one position to another point as another position. Each position is a point relative to another point as a distance between two points. Each particle is a position of points relative to other points.
13. A definition is a line as it is a string of definitions, movement from one definition to another is replication of said definitions. Replication of one definition is the manifestation of said definition as connected to one set of definitions then connected to another set as another definition. Each definition as a position amidst other definitions is a string between definitions. Each definition is a position of definitions relative to other definitions.
Each particle as composed of further particles acts as a variable. The same occurs for each definition, as part of an abstraction, as composed of further definitions. This series of phenomenon, in itself, is a string due to linear progression. A string is one definition attached to another definition given it exists as a extension of a definition. This string is a phenomenon as well, thus resulting in the variables which compose the string as a variable in itself. One variable changes into a series of variables which in turn again act as a variable:
A
(A→ B)
(A→ B) = A1

This new variable follows the same form, as the original variable, and changes into another variable string:
A1
(A1→ A2)

With this new variable string acting as a variable in itself and following the same nature:

(A1→ A2) = A1a

A1a
(A1a→ A1b)
(A1a→ A1b) = A1aa

Thus for every act of string creation, through analysis, a new sub string occurs as a result until eventually the string is composed of an infinite number of strings. This summation of strings always result in a series of strings beyond the original with its summation occurring under one variable. In simpler terms a variable breaks down into a string, then another string, until, due to a finite capacity to measure, it is all summated under a single variable again.

One variable breaks down to many and the many exist under one. This in itself becomes a string:
(A→ A1aa)

Or a new variable:
AA1

depending on the degree to which analysis is stopped. Analysis, as the creation of rational strings, is then subject to the observer's choice resulting in knowledge always having an inherent element of randomness given analysis can be started or stopped at any given time.
Dually all progressive tautologies result in a variable that represents the tautology itself, for example:

“A” results in “B” with “B” being a recursion of “A”.
(A→A)→B

“A” to “B” results in “C”, with “C” being a recursion of “A” through “B”:
(A→B)→C

((((A→A)→ B)→ C)→ ....) results in a recursion of “A” as: (((A→ (A→A))→ (A→A→A))...) thus each progression of a variable represents a progress of “A” as a string. Each variable is a progressive string.

As the variable progresses so does the string. “A” as self-referencing, through an infinite recursion, results in the string progressing simultaneously to “A” as it progresses to a new variable. This is considering the string which is composed of the variable “A” is progressing to itself through variations of itself:
((((A→A)→ B)→ C)→ ....)→ A

All variables are both singular variables and strings of variables as multiple variables, thus all variables exist simultaneously as atomic facts and strings. “A” is both an individual variable and a string of variables and exists in a simultaneously dualistic state synonymous to the particle-wave dualism:
(((A→ (A→A))→ (A→A→A))...)→ A


This looping between the variable of the tautology and the tautology as a variable summates philosophy as purely contextual change where philosophy, science and religion itself, is a context best represented as "(A)" in reference to the primary equations presented earlier. In simpler terms all fields of study are nothing other than context manipulation where this manipulation of context occurs through another context. One context changes into another as a context in itself thus resulting in all acts of reasoning being summated as strictly contexts. It is this context through context as context which lends itself to a certain very basic predictability of the underlying forms of logic and reason.
However the ability to predict a phenomena is grounded in the variables observed and goes far beyond the very basic nature of predicting another context resulting from a prior context. There is no set formalization for which to determine which variables are observed and which are not observed. Variable observance is subject to an infinite regress where for every variable observed there are variables not observed which lie beyond it. This infinite regress is the perpetual movement of one variable to another through the ever present “now” which acts as a point of divergence and convergence of phenomena. The “now”, as a means of time and space through which we observe, is a process of phenomena forming and reforming into newer phenomena. The “now’ is fundamentally empty in itself as it is the formless state between one form and another with this formlessness allowing for the gap between forms necessary for the convergence and divergence of phenomena.

[Eodnhoj7]

XXII

Considering all variables exist through further variables this looping necessitates the variable as a context, this is considering a context is a loop as mentioned prior.
All contexts as the center point for further contexts necessitate all contexts as equivocating to another context through an underlying context. These are meta contexts, through recursion (or Assumptive Law of Inherent Middle), that underlie all other contexts. Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation of seemingly unequal contexts. Numbers can be used as an example.
The quantifiability of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity of numbers which compose it. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.
A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )

B) 1=2
((1)0→) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
((0)0→) = 1( )1( )

C) 2=3
(((1)1→)0→) = 1( )1( )1( )

c) 0=3
((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )
(((0)0→)0→)=3( )

c1) 1 = 3
(3) = 1( )


D) 4=3
((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )
(((2)2→)0→) = 1( )1( )1( )
(((1)1→1)2→)

d) 0=4
((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )
((((0)0→)0→)0→) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )


d1) 1=4
(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4
((((1/2)1/2→)1/2→)1/2→) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

Again, a number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them as the summation of these contexts. The common underlying median between perceivably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context. One loop mediates to another loop through the loop.
An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to each other through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise, this example reflects to all logical frameworks where the framework is always right and wrong given it exists as a context.
Another example:
The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes. "Color" and "shape" are inherently middle contexts that allow one context to equate to another.
The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes. While "color" and "shape" is an inherent middle context, that both "Sun" and "Moon" have in common, this middle context is fundamentally empty as it diverges into different colors and shapes. These contexts, as fundamentally void of definition on their own terms, inverts into different contrasting contexts resulting in a definition of this middle term. The emptiness of each term acts as the means for divergence into potentially new, yet contrasting, terms.
The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal as the contexts through which they align necessitates an equivocation of certain phenomena and lack of equality in another.
Another example, from a separate angle, observes the truth value changing in response to a change in context:
1. (Einstein is alive) =T/F
2. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century as an idea) = T but potential F
3. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century) = F but potential T
Numbers 2 and 3 are also simultaneously true and false given a larger context may be potentially presented. For a truth value to change all one has to do is change the context, thus truth value always requires a potential truth value through which it may relate as well. This relation is the equivocation of common medial contexts that seemingly different phenomena express.
The general state of contexts, as being simultaneously true and false given another context, necessitate proof is alignment of contexts alone where falsifiability is not necessarily the primary determinate of truth given falsifiability always exists for a context as it expands to a further context. In relation to all contexts at one moment, a singular context, as an approximation of a greater singular context of “all”, is always true and false given it reflects against the totality of all contexts. A third example of this is:

A unicorn exists = T/F

A unicorn exists under the imagination as a dream = T

A unicorn exists as an empirical biological entity = F

"A unicorn exists" can always be either justified or falsified dependent upon the context it is represented through. "A unicorn exists" is true when it reflects under the context of "dream" but is false under the context of “empirical entity”. Both the "unicorn" and the "dream" share a symmetry through "imagination" which acts as an underlying context both "unicorn" and "dream" exist through. “Imagination” is a super positioned context as in one context existing simultaneously in multiple states at the same time.
Both the "unicorn" and the "biological entity" have an absence of symmetry through the context of "empiricality" which is a context that does not underlie both "unicorn" and "biological entity" but only "biological entity". "Empiricality" is underlying context which "unicorn" and "biological entity" do not share, thus an absence of symmetry as an absence of shared context is observed. Unicorns are not empirical.
Truth And Falsifiability Change According To The Context Presented, Thus "A Unicorn Exists" Is Both True And False.
What we deem as true is determined by the repeatability of the event within a given context where an underlying context unites two or more seemingly different contexts as the repetiton across these various contexts.
The expansion of the context in turn changes the measure in which a phenomenon is repeated. It is this repeatability through the expansion and contraction of context which gives a necessary prerequisite to context as determining truth and false values through its relative growth, through change, into further and further contexts. In simpler terms the expansion of one context into another or the contraction of one context into fewer contexts determines the truth value of the context by allowing a medial context to equate seemingly separate contexts. Truth is the relative expansion and contraction of contexts; expansion relative to definition through multiple contexts, contraction relative to the definition of many phenomena through one context.
All events are falsifiable, or justifiable, given the appropriate context. Thus, empirical testing is not necessarily the sole means of justifying a phenomenon as the context, from which truth value is derived, is subject to a non-empirical means of determining the context itself. It is the absence of empiricality, in determining context, that necessitates all empirical truths being grounded within a prerequisite abstraction that stands above the empirical senses itself. For example, the testing of a rat's diet within the contexts of A and B events may as well be empirical in the test itself but what determines which context is applied is based upon an abstraction considering the events of A and B are a reflection of said abstractions given they are first thought out then physicalized into a new form. The events through which the rat is tested first begin as abstraction.
Under these terms all empirical testing is subject to a descriptive process of reasoning where phenomenon are defined in accord to abstractions. Part of this abstraction is the consensus of which abstraction to apply, with this not being subject to any empirical laws but rather group agreement. In simpler terms the test applied to measure a phenomenon are not limited to empirical knowledge but rather a group subjective agreement as to which empirical test the phenomenon is subject to.
All testing is the group alignment of respective assumptions of what or what not an event in the empirical world is composed of. Each assumption is the viewing of the empirical from a respective angle. Multiple angles of awareness occur for each context being assumed through a variety of observers. Objectivity is alignment of angles of observation, with these alignments being the equivocation of one angle with another, with this alignment of angles being alignments of patterns within the observations of the seemingly separate observers. For example people may observe separate angles of the rat eating a piece of corn, with all angles being variations of said rat eating corn, yet the various angles are united under the same context of the rat eating corn.
Thus in the quest of justifiability, all scientific and philosophical truths are derived from a group agreement in test ability, as any test can be applied to any phenomenon thus leading to any set of results within a given scientific or philosophical experiment. These results are extensions of the test itself and not specifically the environment or event being studied.
What is derived through the process of experimentation is the application of context, with the summation of "everything" as "reality itself" being unable to be tested considering the summation of experience must be aligned within a given context outside the context of existencce thus causing a disjunction between "everything" and "test for everything". Testability, as context application, suffers an infinite regress as what can be tested will always have a test beyond it necessary to justify the former context yet this infinite regress of contexts never extends beyond existence itself given the context aligns with “existence” given it is “existing”.
The summation of reality alone, as "everything" or “all”, will always have the test/context itself as a subset thus leading to a circularity: The test is needed to justify reality, but the test must be "real" in order for the test to be valid, this reality to the test is unjustifiable without going into a circularity. Testing for the totality of the universe is impossible given the test must be applied to what is real, yet the reality of the test must first be established by further testing if the test is to be viewed as real. A regressive spiral occurs as the test must be real to test what is real but what is real must be tested. The test must test itself thus always leading to a test of what is real as existing beyond what can be tested. In simpler terms the test is assumed as real but in itself cannot be tested thus cannot be real.
In testing “all that exists” the question over the nature of “all” occurs. “All that exists” necessitates “all” as a context which exists in contrast to nothingness, yet there is no “nothingness” as only being exists. Nothing is a statement of relation between parts where nothingness is the absence of one thing relative to another. An empty cup for example observes the absence of that which fills the cup leaving only the cup as a point of distinction as the change of one phenomenon to another.
Thus “all” in contrast to nothingness is “all” in contrast to some other being which exists as distinct with this distinction being the point of change from one phenomenon to another. “All” is the point of distinction between one set of being, as distinct, and another set of being, as distinct. “All” effectively leads to some being as “all” is a point of change from one set of being to another thus leaving multiple “alls” as one “all” is a point of change to another “all”. “All” is a grouping of some respective phenomenon thus leaving it as distinct to another grouping of some respective phenomenon.
“All being” results in a paradox given “All being” results in a point of distinction relative to “nothingness” where “All” changes to nothing thus resulting in a form of equivocation between “everything” and “nothing” as one changes into the other.
The ability to test “all being”, as defining what is real, is falsifiable given the test is the mimicking of natural variables which already exist thus leaving certain facets of existences as untestifiable given an untested reality is required to test reality itself.. In mimicking one set of variables a series of variables are left out given the mimicking is an approximation of the natural set of variables.
There is no true test which contains all variables found in nature, thus testing is nothing other than a recursion of some natural variables being repeated in a new light thus causing a fundamental difference between what is being tested and the test in itself given under the totality of existence certain variables are kept within x framework but under the test these certain variables may be left out.
The test is a variation of what is being tested and as a variation is distinct thus different from what is being tested. In testing a phenomenon, what is being observed is the test and not the natural environment in itself. Yet this test being observed is rarely if ever tested. What is applied, in the act of testing, is context thus the act of testing itself is the application of context. One context changes into another with the test itself being the change of one context, that of the test, to another context, that of the natural environment itself. Testing is context manipulation, manipultation is change, thus testing is change of context.
All contexts are true, as existing, and the alignment with other contexts necessitates this truth value as grounded in degrees of interpretation. Truth is grounded by the degrees through which a relation occurs to further contexts by having both a quantity and quality of contexts in common. The very nature of existence itself is a premeditated truth value that underlies all contexts given existence’s “as is-ness”. All contexts have a degree of truth through existence itself because they exist.
Falsifiability thus lends itself to a manifestation of degrees along a continuum, where all contexts as continuums derive truth value from alignment with further continuums however this continuum necessitates a continuity to further contexts which do not align. This nature of degrees within falsifiability is the nature of one context eventually changing to another context which does not align with the former. For example the context of “bird” aligns with the continuum of contexts where it continues to “wing” or , “beak” but eventually breaks down to an absence of continuing contexts when the context of “titanium” is introduced. This is considering the continuum of “titanium”, as composed of further contexts, differentiates itself and is not part of the continuum of “bird” and the continuums which compose it.
Each continuum is a loop given that which composes a singular context does so through a self referentiality given that each series of phenomena, which occurs through the context, has the same beginning and end point due to the singularity of said group of phenomena having the same beginning points as ends. For example, the context of a rat eating x amount of food within y environment necessitates y environment causing x amount of food to be eaten and x amount of food to be eaten necessitating y environment. Each context, as the beginning of a continuum of contexts, also results in it being the end of the context through a loop. The beginning context is also the end context. This beginning/end nature of the context is the repetition of said context through observation under various angles. A further example of this is the simple line between two points where the beginning point is the same as the end point.
What we deem as false is a misalignment between contexts as an absence of continuuity, yet this misalignment necessitates each context is self referentially true by the fact they are degrees of existence. Existence results in existence and this existence is true through repeatability. Degrees are one thing existing through a variation yet this variation results in the same thing expressed through a myriad of ways. Take the number 1 for example, 1 manifests in difference degrees through 2, 3, 4, etc as 1 being repeated through a newer and newer variation. Even with the misalignment of contexts, resulting in falsity, this false context is still composed of grades of existence thus are true through existence alone.
It is in manifestation of degrees, where each context as a continuum is part of another context as a continuum, that necessitates existence as a relation of parts which form a whole. This whole is the summation of interlinked parts with this interlocking of truths determining which have truth value and which do not. Truth is thus premised in the connection between contexts with any absence of connection, as an absence of symmetry between parts, being the sole determinate of what we deem as falsifiable.
In shorter terms, falsifiability is an absence of connection between contexts as an absence of symmetry. Symmetry acts as the sole unifier by reflecting certain common bonds which exist across contexts. Symmetry is a connection across contexts through a super positioned context that exists in multiple contexts at the same time. We know a unicorn does not exist empirically due to its inability to align with empirical sensory data, we only know of certain sub forms existing such as “horse” and “horn” yet these contexts do not overlay each other empiricality. The inability for the context of “empiricality” to be superpositioned over the contexts of “horse” and “horn” results in an absence of the unicorn existing. This is considering both “horse” and “horn” cannot be observed under the same context through the context of the senses. On the other hand “cow” and “horn”, as bull”, exist through the context of “empiricality” where “empiricality”, as a context, is superpositioned (existing through multiple contexts simultaneously) across both “cow” and “horn” through “bull”. Multiple contexts can be observed under a singular context through the context of the senses.
This superpositioning of context, where a singular context mediates across many, is determined through the angle of observation where this common context is only observable based upon the angle through which a series of phenomenon are observed. This angle varies per observer where what is common amidst a series of phenomenon is not always present to the observer.
All assertions, existing as relative to the observer, necessitate each assertion as having multiple angles of interpretation thus necessitating each assertion as having multiple levels of meaning. This multiple levels of meaning results in a variation of a single phenomenon resulting in the same phenomenon existing as multiple different phenomena where each divergent viewpoint of a context is a phenomenon in itself as a point of change to another context thus is distinct.
For example the phrase: "Nothing exists" can be translated at minimum as:
1. Absence of "thingness" exists as there is no thing.
2. There is no existence unless there is “thingness”.
3. Existence is not limited to "things" as existence occurs in spite of nothing.
4. Existence is limited to "things" as nothing is an absence of existence.

All of which are correct statements, given the appropriate context. Therefore each statement is layered with potential meanings and context is always necessitated by an expansion to further context. What we understand of an assertion, which exists as a self-referential context under its own terms due to its identity of (P=P), is decided by the contexts which are derived from it potentially. Each assertion, as a context through the law of identity, under its own terms is a self-referential loop through this equivocation with itself with this loop being defined by further potential loops as a loop between the actual and potential states of a context.
The context as actual is dependent solely on the potential contexts which are derived from it, therefore in the relation of actuality and potentiality the assertion is determined retro causally in a manner where what the assertion will mean exists as defining the context for what it is.
The potential is linked towards the actual in such a way that meaning is determined by future contexts in a manner where the assertion, as a context, is linked across time and becomes transfinite. Meaning exists in a larger finite state compared to its original finite assertion.
The actual state of a phenomenon variates into further actual states through its potential state. The actual state is one of form, the potential state is one of formlessness. The formless potential state of a phenomenon acts as a means of inversion from one actual state into that of another. The form is negated by what is formless, this negation of the actual is the change which manifests the actual into further actuals.
For example, a singular piece of wood exists. This piece of wood is cut. The actual state of the wood is divided through the formlessness of the cut resulting in multiple pieces of wood. The wood as an "actual" changes into multiple "actuals" through the formless nature of the cut. The cut is the potential change of the wood into further "actuals", this potentiality is grounded within the absence of form of the cut itself given the cut is empty space. Emptiness acts as the point of divergence from one phenomenon into another.
This negation of the actual results in the division of the actual into another manner of existence through a potentiality which manifests as formlessness. Formlessness is the means of change of one state into another. It is the synthesis of the actual and potential that allows the actual to be a dynamic state of progression where actuality manifests as a continuum.
This dualism between the actual and potential reflects a state of synthesis through context, where the context as actual is changed through a potential which is formlessness. The nature of form and formlessness, or actuality and potentiality, results in a synthetic state between the two. This synthesis being form and formlessness is change.
Everything reduced to actual and potential contexts, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. Context is true as existing self referentially considering this repetition necessitates order through symmetry, it is false as open to expansion considering the context is empty in itself. Definition takes on the nature of rings within rings where the context as a ring is full of further empty rings. Actually contains potentiality much in the same manner a ring contains formlessness within it. Truth is determined through a self referentiality, resulting in form, and falsity is determined through an absence of self referentiality, as a absence of form. Observing the example of rings again, the ring is determined as true through the further rings it contains as repetitions of itself with this repetition containing nothingness as the potentiality of one ring resulting in another through the gaps between the rings that contain further rings.
Truth is derived from a circular form given a form is present with this form representing an “as is” state considering it is accepted for what it is. In simpler terms the nature of a form within a form, or rather phenomenon within a phenomenon, is circular and this circularity, as repetition, allows for an existence where a thing is accepted for what it is. Yet paradoxically the emptiness of the circular form results in a falsity considering it reflects an absence of definition. A circle encapsulates nothingness, repetition is the result of gaps between phenomena. This gap, as formlessness, necessitates a degree of falsity as the change of said phenomenon through a potential new form.
Falsity is derived from a linearism given a continual manifestation, thus incompletion through the intrinsic emptiness of each context, of form occurs therefore resulting in a continual progression and negation of the prior context. One phenomenon results in another phenomena thus resulting in a linear progression or regression as the continuum of phenomenon. Linearism dually is grounded in a truth value considering the progression of one context to another acts as the means of justification of said context. The variation of one context to another results in the variation of said context thus justification. Justiification is the change of one phenomenon to another, therefore justification is variation. This variation, while negating the prior context through a progression past it, dually allows for its truth value through a contrast of contexts which allows for definition.
Both circularity and falsity hold respective truth and falsity values. On one hand circularity is grounded in truth value through form grounded in repetition where the emptiness of the circular form, as potential change, is the emptiness of truth value. On the other hand, linearism represents a progression past the original phenomenon thus causing a negation of the old while dually this progression allows the original assertion to be redefined through a variation under a linear form. Context is thus dualistic; it is both circular and linear as a spiral with a further dualism of truth and falsity occuring respectively for each circular and linear form. It is this spiral nature within truth values that necessitates a nature of relativity, through the relation of parts, given the progressive variation of the same thing through multiple contexts results in an ever expanding or contracting series of contexts as one thing through many variations much in the same manner the curves of a spiral keep repeating yet are different sizes. One curve is relative to another curve through the spiral as a relationship of parts.
To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts, certain rings must align with other rings given the relationship of parts necessitates an underlying symmetry as common contexts which repeat through a variation of contexts.
This can be expressed under an example of morality where certain actions are only appropriate under specific underlying common contexts. Killing is moral under self-defense but is not moral as entertainment. “Self defense” and “entertainment” do not share the same context of “survival” thus under one context killing is moral and under another context it is not. This is do to the absence of sharing a common context. Dually one may have the moral choice of theft when living in a city, but not so much when living in a cave given the city and the cave do not share the same context of “multiple.people owning multiple properties”.
Alignment of relative contexts necessitates absolute truth as existing. The context as having any secondary nature to truth is in itself a context, thus what we understand of context is the inversion of one context to another, causing one context is exist recursively through another placing context paradoxically at the forefront as context underlines various contexts. This again reflects the triad of inherent middle, inherent void and inherent context:

1. All contexts are center points to further contexts.
2. All contexts are empty in themselves yet exist through further contexts.
3. All contexts are intrinsically empty loops which exist through further loops, context is thus form.

Being exists through cycles which allows for a context to both be a center point to a further context while intrinsically empty. What is absolute is 1 underlying absolute cycle, which is approximated through many cycles. Absolute truth is approximated through relative truth. This approximation is the change of one context through another due to an absence of completion in form considering approximation contains both form and formlessness. This change is constant thus necessitating changing contexts as an unchanging underlying context.
For example, a series of monads exists. There is no one monad at first glance but many where each phenomenon as a monad, or singularity, is composed of multiple monads. However, each monad is the same nature of the point with their summation resulting in many different forms. Each form is reducible to a point thus is reducible to a monad. The phenomenon as composed of monads is in itself a monad. Each monad exists through the same point, thus even though there are many monads, technically it is the same point repeated again and again. One point is approximated through many points, so while there are many monads it is actually the same one in different positions. Unity is approximated through multiplicity, approximation is change and there is one underlying constant of change across phenomenon. Change is the maintenance of forms as a form in itself through its linear progression and circular repeatability.
Relativity and absolute truth both exist simultaneously. What is absolute is constant, what is relative is changing. Constant change is a changing constant thus a paradox occurs. What is relative equates to what is absolute as relativity is absolute. What is absolute equates to what is relative as what is absolute changes to further absolutes. This dualism of absolute and relative are grounded in the inherent angles in which something is observed as absolutism and relativism are dual perspectives yet perspectives none the less.
When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner. This inversion is linear, the repetition is circular. Pure geometric forms underlie all abstract and empirical being as being in itself is form which exists "as is". What we understand of reality is a series of forms which expand and contract from a single point of awareness, with this awareness being grounded in the point considering intuitively it not only stems from a point of view but the point is the most basic observable phenomenon which stems across multiple perspectives yet observed in constant variation through these perspectives. In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle expressed through a spiral.

[Eodnhoj7]

XXIII

Form is constant and it in itself is intrinsically empty given upon closer inspection nothing is there except a series of further forms. A form is a median to further forms where one form inverts to many. This points to all forms as intrinsically empty thus nothing. This leads to the question of "what is nothing?" Nothing is not a thing in itself but a relationship between parts. For example an empty cup points to the relationship between a liquid and a cup. The emptiness is an absence of a specific relation, i.e. that which lacks something. In this case the liquid in the cup. Void is not a thing on itself thus is self-negating. Only being exists and nothing as an absence of form is the change of one form into another much in the same manner the empty space between rings within rings is the change of one ring into another.
Nothing cannot be perceived on its own terms as it is not a thing in itself but an observation of relative parts. Nothingness does not exist, on its own terms, thus any concept of void negates itself under a contradiction into only being occurring. Nothingness as multiplicity mandates no nothingness as the multiplicity of multiplicity which paradoxically results in multiplicity as a singular constantly repeating phenomenon. The voiding of void, or no nothingness, is being itself. Being thus is grounded in a contradiction in terms through a double negation which is cyclical. Being as grounded in contradiction is contradiction.
All phenomena are observed in relation to a contrasting phenomenon thus do not exist on their own terms. This absence of existing on its own terms necessitates the phenomenom as empty when viewed individually. The nature of distinction, where a phenomenon is observed individually, is an observation of contrasting phenomenon. To say something is distinct is to say it stands out from a phenomenon. As standing out the phenomenon exists in contrasting to another phenomenon thus exists only in relation through the phenomenon leaving the distinct phenomenon as a point of inversion where one phenomenon exists through another. This nature of the distinct phenomenon is that of a point of change from one phenomenon to another thus leaving the distinct phenomenon as empty in itself. Distinction is an empty singularity with this singularity being one of perpetual change thus paradoxical no change considering constant change in itself is unchanging.
Nothingness can be deduced from an object through a deeper degree of analysis given no object is in itself existing since it requires another phenomenon to determine it. For example, a singular bird does not exist when observed on its own. It is observed in relationship to another phenomenon such as a tree or as a series of parts which compose it. It is viewed as relative to something else where the bird sits in contrast to something else. It in itself is nothing.
This emptiness of each phenomenon in turn necessitates each phenomenon as void in itself thus a point in which one phenomenon changes into another. In observing a bird we observe it change into a tree branch with the tree branch changing into a tree, etc. We may also observe the bird as changing from itself as a whole phenomenon into a series of feathers or wings. Each phenomenon is a distinct point of change from one phenomenon into another.
Each phenomenon in itself is empty thus a point zero in observation. And much like point zero it acts the same way as zero. A zero on its own terms in impossible to observe given it does not exist much in the same manner where the act of observing observation results in the emptiness behind the observation. Zero, as a zero dimensional point on a number line where all lines are the actual numbers, is observed through its self-negation into a line with this line being the progress from one zero to another thus containing zero much in the same manner a line contains nothingness under the repetition of lines. The line containing nothingness through is repetition of further lines is fundamentally circular. The line results in the circle and the circle results in the lines through the singular point, approximated through many points, existing.
This can be observed in the manner where one repeats itself through multiple numbers with one containing zero through its repetition of itself into further numbers through a looping of one. This one as containing zero can be observed under the number containing zero between the number one much in the same manner two, three, four, etc. observe nothingness as existing between multiple ones which form the very same number. In simpler terms numbers such as two, three, four, etc. have zero space or nothingness between the multiple ones which form them thus resulting in one number as the number itself. An example of this is multiple lines through a line or multiple circles within circles containing fundamentally nothing. Another example of this would be the counting of objects with these multiple objects containing empty space between them.
This occurs with each zero being a point of change from one phenomenon into another much in the same manner nothingness results in being as nothingness is the point of change with this constant change being “being” itself. This is considering nothingness can only be observed in contrast to being, thus is a point of change into being. One inverting to one is two, one inverting to one inverting to one is three, etc. Nothingness as change changes into being thus change changes with this changing change as constant and what is consistent changes. A paradoxical loop occurs between the opposing phenomena of “change” and “no change” with this loop presenting itself only “as is” where this dualism is accepted strictly for what it is under its totality as a single phenomenon best expressed under the singular term “dualism”. A dualism is thus the synthesis of two seemingly opposing phenomena as a singular phenomenon in itself. This results in the triad between the thesis, antithesis and both the thesis and antithesis. This dualism is as a summation between opposing phenomenon is in itself a contradiction through distinction where both contradiction and distinction can be viewed as one and the same phenomenon.
The aforementioned nature of distinction as contradiction is presented through a looping form where self-referentiality of a phenomenon is the self-distinction as self-contradiction. One phenomenon as repeating through the fractal of another phenomenon poses a contradictory nature given one phenomenon exists as a variation of another thus necessitating difference. This difference between the source and the fractal necessitates a contradiction through an intrinsic opposition. The contrast of the loop externally and internally consisting of nothingness necessitates the loop as the contradictory nature of being as being itself. The loop is the voiding of void as a contradiction thus being itself is not only grounded in contradiction by nature but is a contradiction.
Each phenomenon is a progressive point of change into another phenomenon thus leaving each phenomenon as reducible to nothing thus causing the cyclical voiding of void to occur repeatedly ad infinitum through the manifestation of being. In simpler terms void results in being, being results in void, thus being occurs through being as being stems from the void it is derived from with void being the change of one being to another. Void self negates into being, being is negated into further being through void.

Nothingness is the absence of "a thing in itself" thus necessitating all phenomenon are intrinsically empty in themselves except through another phenomenon. One phenomenon does not exist except through another thus is void on its own terms as a distinct phenomenon.

Any distinction is to point out a singular phenomenon composed as the apex of a series of phenomenon with this singularity being internally and externally empty much in the same manner where a loop is internally and externally empty.
For example, to look at a deer is to see a series of parts which compose the deer. The deer is a relationship of multiple parts with this relationship being one of change. This change is the inversion of one part of the deer into another. For example, in looking at a leg the leg changes into hair or a torso. In looking at the hair or torso it changes into a leg. Dually to look at a deer is to see a series of parts which are not the deer such as the backdrop of the field, the grass which composes the field, and the dirt which forms the field itself all of which change into another with the deer as the apex. The deer is thus the emptiness of the phenomena which internally compose it and the emptiness of the phenomena which externally compose it.
The distinction is the point of change where the observation of any singularly observed phenomenon is the observation a change where many phenomena converge into one, or one phenomenon diverges into many.

To say something is distinct is to mark it as a point of change. For example, if a deer exists distinctly in a field it is an observation of a point of change in the observation of the field to something else entirely. The deer is where the field in changes into another phenomena and reversely the deer is the point of where the observation changes into a field. The distinct object exists in contrast to another phenomenon with this contrast necessitating a change from one phenomenon into another. It is this change through contrast which necessitates all phenomenon as fundamentally nothing in themselves where what is distinct being equivalent to a point of change in which one phenomenon is observed through another but not as a thing in itself. To say a phenomenon is a “thing in itself” or “distinct” is to observe it as the point of change from one phenomenon into another.
Nothing is observed in the individual entity given everything is empty in and of itself and is observed only through the contrast with something else. A thing in itself does not exist thus is void on its own terms; a phenomenon is defined by another phenomenon. Even the totality of the “all” as a summation of “everything” there is, is dependent upon its fractal parts through which it exists yet each part is distinctly different from the whole except for some common underlying properties. One supreme context is dependent upon many contexts and the many contexts are dependent upon the one. Both one and many, as phenomena, are mutually dependent upon the other thus necessitating reality as triadic: one, many and being itself.

Dually nothing is an absence of some relationship with some other phenomenon where the phenomenon:

1. Ceases a relationship with some other phenomenon thus is empty of that phenomenon.

2. Because it is absent of relations with another phenomenon the phenomenon in and of itself is empty.

3. The phenomenon as absent of relationship is empty in itself and absent of said relationship thus nothing is twofold: The phenomenon in itself is empty as a thing in itself and dually the phenomenon is empty of a relationship with another phenomenon.

To speak of “nothingness” is to effectively speak of a contradiction and speak through contradiction. The void voids itself and is expressed only as being. This being in turn is voided into multiple beings resulting in the relationship between parts thus necessitating being as have a dynamic state where it moves itself through itself through void. For example the liquid can only be poured into the cup if the cup is empty, the emptiness allows for the relationship between water and cup, and their subsequent movements to occur.

Simultaneously this void acts as the intrinsic curvature which allows for the cup and water to have distinct properties. Looking at water in a cup, one can see the distinct curvature of both the cup and the water as intrinsically empty yet it is the boundary line between the water and the cup which allows for this aforementioned distinction. Another example of this is the line between the cup half full of liquid and half full of air, the line maintains the definite properties between the air and water yet is intrinsically empty.

The line in itself is void, this line both connects the phenomenon and observes them as distinct. It is the boundary through which phenomenon exist as distinct in themselves and yet connected through relation.

Void is thus the multiplicity of being moving through itself as itself.


Void, as the relationship between parts, is both the emptiness of a specific phenomenon and is the curvature which allows for definition. How this applies through a theory where all is a simulation, or an illusion, is that being in its totality is directed through itself as itself through the void. The imaginary, or rather illusive nature of reality, reflects void acting much like a barrier. This barrier is the multiplicity of phenomena which in turn acts as a means of approximation in a manner where the "whole" or the "all" is only observed in parts. This absence of a perceivable, yet existing, whole is the masking of the "One" through the "Many".

Void as a relationship between parts is a statement of change considering the curvature which results in the form that constitutes a being is intrinsically empty:

1. There is no same context twice as all contexts are changing.
***There is no same physical object (river, tree, snowflake) or abstraction (thought, emotion).
2. This continual change of one context to another is a revolution of context into another context thus each context is separate from another context by a context.
***The river may change into land, water into land, one though into another, etc. through an intrinsically empty limit.
I may see water separate from land by a distinct curvature which is intrinsically empty. A glass half of water and half of air shows a distinct boundary separating them, as well as both from the glass, with this boundary being curvature.
The same applies for any progressive series of thoughts or emotions, one is separated through another by an inherent "emptiness" or lack of memory where each thought and emotion as intrinsically empty on its own terms separates other thoughts and memories.

3. This "turning" as the variation of one phenomenon into another observes this "curvature". A car turning into a street effectively separates one position from another position with the car being determined precisely by its position. No two cars as separate positions are the same, even though they are the same car, because of the positions through which they exist in space and time.

Turning, as change, is inversion. One direction of movement changing to another direction of movement is inversion...all phenomenon exist through direction as this direction necessitates movement. The movement of one phenomenon to another, as the change of one phenomenon to another, is the direction of one phenomenon to another thus necessitating a linear trajectory which underlies the movement/change of phenomena in themselves.

4. Curvature is the inversion of one phenomenon into another, with this formlessness existing as a boundary of both phenomena. The line which separates both the air and water in a glass is the same line which maintains their distinct natures.
These distinct natures, bound by the intrinsically empty curvature that contains them, are empty in their own natures where the curvature is the perpetual loop which forms them as a context or localization of reality. This curvature as a perpetual loop can be observed within the measurable shape of all phenomenon having the same beginning and end point when traced. Dually the inversion of one context to another context is the cycling of context through an isomorphism. For example, an empty square and a full square, as isomorphisms, shows a recursion of the basic properties of the square as four equal sides with each side being compose of the same curvature repeating.

5. This intrinsic emptiness of both the curvature that defines the phenomena and the phenomena itself, through the loop that exists because of the traceable outline of any objects, observes this "voidness" voiding itself into the phenomena. The void nature of the line separating water from air in a glass cancels itself out into the respective water and air resulting in a traceable loop representing the boundaries of said phenomena. The curvature which composes of a phenomenon is in itself empty of form.

6. This phenomenon, as the voiding of void, is further voided into further phenomena constantly. For example, the voiding of the line outlining a puddle of water is further voided into the molecules themselves with their respective outlines. One boundary self-negates into another. Each quality exists intrinsically by inherently empty curvature as intrinsically empty curvature.

7. Each phenomenon, as inherently empty curvature, is thus a contextual loop as the beginning of the curvature results in the same position as the end when traced. For example, when tracing the form of a man the curvature begins in the same position as where it ends. All phenomena as loops equivocates one phenomenon to another where seemingly different phenomena reflect as equal given they are both composed of loops. The looping which forms the shape of a man is the same looping which forms the shape of the horse yet each loop is different in form.

8. All phenomenon, as curvature through contextual looping, are thus images or "imaginary". An image is that which reflects a whole as a part. For example, a picture is a reflection of another phenomenon by representing a part of it as it exists in time and space. This representation is a replication. All phenomena are an approximation of another phenomenon where the curvature which forms the phenomena is the very same curvature which connects and separates it from other phenomena.

[Eodnhoj7]

XXIV

It is this nature of phenomena existing through “definition as curvature” which necessitates being as taking on a nature of language itself given that language is a series of symbols, which define further symbols, with each symbol existing fundamentally as a form with the form existing fundamentally as curvature.
The symbol points towards the phenomenon it means, the identity of the phenomenon is the act of pointing itself. For example, the symbol of a dog points to the actual dog itself. In these respects, the symbol is the image of the phenomenon it points too thus necessitating the symbol as more or less a recursive fractal of the original phenomenon. This fractal nature of the symbol, in relation to the phenomenon it represents, shows a recursion of form through form. This recursion exists beyond the senses given repetition is not grounded specifically in the senses only.

The question of a strict empirical approach to phenomenon, where the symbol is a series of neurons within the brain, is paradoxical given that the neurons being studied require a series of neurons behind it as responsible for the studying. A loop occurs and this looping form is responsible for the act of self-reflection while dually requiring that consciousness is determined by a form beyond it, in this case a circle. Curvature is even represented in the most abstract notions of thought as a guiding force behind it given that the forms that are being rationalized require the rationalization behind them to be guided by form.
Form and reason thus go hand in hand and are mutually related. It is in these respects that the loop reflects a general state of actions where this form is a series of actions within actions, thus as a symbol it represents a whole host of phenomena ranging from a simple cycle in nature (circulation of blood in the body or water on land) to the more abstract circularity of self-reflection.
This generalization of a phenomenon through a symbol, in this case the loop or circle, necessitates one symbol as representing multiple phenomena where a common form is superimposed through many things. The medial nature of the symbol and the medial nature of language calls for a degree of equivocation between the symbol/language and the phenomenon being represented.
Language is symbols, and symbols are forms, thus stepping back and taking a broader perspective of language it is a series of forms. Reality, as forms, and language, as forms, necessitates reality as its own language when looked at from a distance. Both reality and language are mediated through forms.

In these respects language occurs through a given form and a given form alone as the progression of one context to another. It is this form that determines the truth value of all language as derived from existence alone. In simpler terms it is the existence of language which validates it as a distinct phenomenon. Language as distinct is the change of one state into another, the nature of language as that of “pointing to” necessitates it as a mode of change.
The tension of "being" and "nonbeing", which is at the heart of any dialogue through the thesis and antithesis, results in a self-referential definition of the aforementioned proposition where truth value is a dualism between form and formlessness in which being references itself through forms. In simpler terms in discussing the dualism between being and non-being an expression of being and non-being occurs through the very same act of definition itself in which the dialogue is defining.
This definition is the persuasive power of any and all truth and as such necessitates dialog as an exhibition of force given that dialogue is the manifestation of forms and the manifestation of forms is in itself a dialogue. A dialogue is the contrast of opposites, through contradiction, where definition results from the form containing a formless center which is the division of the phenomena. The emptiness between opposing assertions, as the space or gap between assertions, is the center point from which definition appears through a contrast.
This force of dialogue simply is form, with this form being a continuum we call quality where any and all truth is irrational until it is divided into parts through the act of quantification where a phenomenon is made finite. All phenomenon as grounded in the “One” necessitates a form of seperation from the “One” when viewed as distinct. This distinction is the change of “the one” into “the many”.
This continuum, as quality, can be observed in the example of color. In observing the quality of red what we observe is a continuum of multiple reds which exist through it. In another example, observing the quality of a horse is to observe a series of forms and actions, such as 4 legs, a main, grazing on grass, etc. which exist as a continuum through the phenomenon.
Quality is a continuum. Quantity is the limit of the continuum where a beginning an end point is observed in the quality thus making it finite. This finiteness allows for a distinction between one phenomenon and another through an individuation of said phenomenon. Quantity is the change of one quality into another, one continuum into another continuum. This in turn allows for the irrational continuity to become rational discontinuity.
A paradox occurs as different definitions of quantity and quality can be observed given different subjective angles of awareness. Yet the different observations are grounded in a continuum considering what does continue is different opinions. In these respects, observation is grounded in a qualitative approach considering the same aspect of divergence, or convergence, of phenomenon exists through a continuum. The manifestation of finite opinions is a manifestation of quantity through quality. Dually quality through quantity occurs given each manifestation of a limit is the manifestation of a new continuous opinion. In observing the quality of a horse a quantity of horses are observed, this quantity in turn results in separate horses as separate continuums of phenomenon occurring. Quantity occurs through quality and quality through quantity, both revolve around the center point of the phenomenon being observed. This center point is the individuation of the phenomenon as a distinct phenomenon through the quantities and qualities that define it.
This individuation, while a continuum in itself considering individuation repeatedly occurs, is the tautology that lends itself into an inherent circularity where one proposition is observed through many as the repetition of said phenomenon. Philosophy, and all rational endeavors, are thus grounded into who can make the most impenetrable sphere of reasoning on any given point, yet fails to admit to this geometric origin as the sole underlying factor that determines its success or failure. Reason is spherical as the change of one loop two another much in the same manner that depth can be observed through the replication of one 2d image of a phenomenon into another.
Dialect, in its continual atomism of the assertion, negates itself under a perpetual manner of "assuming through division" where it effectively leads to the very multiplication of problems and languages its seeks to avoid. It is contradictory by nature. In trying to breakdown the assertion more assertions, which must be further broken down, are formed.
The standard dialect, embodied through debate, never results in a form of agreement between parties but rather a creation of further tautologies that justify each party's stance. Under these terms it merely acts as a form of self-persuasion. It is the creation of a logical sphere allowing further dialect to bounce off any given stance when reinforced well enough by its recursion of tautologies. One assumption manifests itself into a newer assumption through its adaptation to an opposing assertion. For example, in a discussion of x political party, when presented with y political party’s views, a new series of assertion are formed under the counter argument redefining x political party’s stance. This redefinition of assertion suggests a synthetic notion to most dialects, but this synthesis occurs through opposition where one stance is redefined through opposition to maintain its opposition to the opposing stance. The stance and the opposing stance join together to redefine the original stance.
Dialectic is thus a self-negating universal "or" function of the psyche, continually dividing assumptions until rhetoric is given form by uniting this chaotic mess of assertions much in the same manner a religious ritual gives rise to unity in the psyche or between groups. The nature of Rhetoric, as persuasive, gains its groundings in a form of hypnotism where the same thing is repeated again and again from different angles. This hypnosis, through repetition, is the nature of truth itself where what is deemed true is observed as such if it is persuasive with this persuasion being the assumption of the form of the argument through a repetition of elements under a variation of said position. Repetition results in form and what is assumed is form.
Rhetoric is thus a process of binding, with its persuasive quality being grounded in the simple presentation of a form. This form, persuasive by nature due to its self-referential quality under the repetition of assertions, acts as a filter by creating a perspective through which one perceives the world. As such it negates the dialectic as having any coherent value in and of itself other than a strict creation of perpetual fallacies that even the dialectic falls into considering the division of assertions, as a concept in itself, is rarely divided.
The grounds of philosophy, and knowledge through language, is in "assumption". This assumption, as without thought or form, is void and akin to an intellectual vacuum. What is assumed is taken without thought. This has been stated before...nothing new.
The dialectic and rhetoric, which revolves around these key assumptions, does in fact revolve like a spiral around these key assumptions in an effort not to elaborate and clarify them...but rather contain them and hide them.
Any progressive definition, negates the old, causing not just empty terminology but effectively a morphing of language into a vortex in both form and function. An example of this, specifically speaking the "nihilistic tendencies" of excessive language, is within the spiral nature of the scientific method where the emphasis on "facts", that are continually negated for new facts, effectively leaves knowledge itself as meaningless given a new series of assertions are continually manifested thus leading to interpretations that negate the old ones. This is reflected further through technological progress where one technology eventually negates that of a prior technology. Another example is a philosophical treaty which keeps presenting new terms.
It is the redefinition of language, through continual dialectic and rhetoric, that results in the very language trying to contain its hidden baseless nature as fundamentally causing it. Philosophy, specifically the modern post pre-Socratic sense, is story creation. Whoever gives the greatest degree of definition creates a story. This story is embodied within the psyche, forming and guiding perspective, and takes on a god complex.
The greater the definition the greater the philosopher. With the increase in definitions comes an increase in interpretations. Thus philosophers such as Kant or Nietzsche are "great" not strictly because of the great degree of detail, but because this great degree of detail allows for a variety of interpretations that can equivocate to anything.
They are great because when we see them we see "us", and this mirror results in the narcissus myth hidden behind the nature of much of logic and reason.

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

In these respects, philosophy, and all rational endeavors, takes on a ritualistic nature of creating symbols, with these symbols being “gods’ as they direct the psyche. Symbolism is god creation. Definition, or rather storytelling, is the worship of these gods.
This symbol creation is the creation of analogies as one state of being is used to represent another. In referencing “hardship” under the analogy of “a camel going through the eye of a needle” a symbol, or series of symbols, is or are attached to an experience thus directing how the psyche processes said experience through a given form which contains it. This connection of one experience to another experience is further grounded in recursion where seemingly different phenomena connect through common underlying forms. For example, the quality of hardship reflects the very same nature as that of “putting a camel through the eye of a needle”.
This connection of one form to another form, the “needle” and the “camel”, is in itself a form, as the metaphor, given analogies are a phenomenon in the respect they are contexts. Context through context is context. In these respects:

1. Analogies are phenomena.

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

3. This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

4. All phenomena, including analogies, lead to further phenomena.

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

6. This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum as analogies exist through further analogies.

Why? Because phenomena are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself. All these different dimensions of “being” are “being” in themselves given they are dimensions as contexts through contexts.
It is this expression of analogies, where one symbol or set of symbols mediates to another, which lends intelligence as subject to infinite grades, this is considering an analogy is the representation of a phenomenon from a different angle of observation as a grade of said being. This gradation is the mirroring of said phenomenon into a newer and different state.
The ability to observe representations is the grounding of intelligence. It is the observation of a phenomenon through the lens of another phenomenon that necessitates intelligence as observing symbols through grades of symbols. Intelligence is the formation of analogies through the connection and separation of symbols, this connection/separation of symbols is the gradation of symbols. Intelligence is the ability to observe gradation with this gradation being the act of representation considering a grade is a variation of said phenomenon.
It is the manifestation of a phenomenon in grades, given the creation and recreation of symbols, that necessitates intelligence as being so multifaceted that intelligence fails to accurately describe itself without breaking into further subcategories. This is considering intelligence itself can be mirrored through a variety of analogies, it can be viewed through the lens of a variety of symbols. Symbols are used to defined symbols with this nature not just always requiring further symbols to express it but in itself requires symbols to express it under this said statement.
Intelligence is the inverting of one category of being into another thus the best proof of intelligence is creativity, the ability to take "nothing" and invert it into "something". This “something” is the symbol with all empirical creations being symbols in themselves given they both are directed towards or represent something else. The creation of symbols is the creation of continuums, the creation of continuums is intelligence. Intelligence is thus symbol manipulation with this manipulation being gradation, as representation, where the thing being represented is broken down to further phenomena as symbols. This in turn necessitates intelligence as creativity.
Creativity is the convergence and divergence of symbols with this statement cycling back to the prior statements of everything being converging and diverging phenomenon. Under these premises all phenomena are not only the biproduct of intelligence but manifest as degrees of intelligence in and of themselves and exhibits a degree of self awareness given intelligence and form, through symbols, are inseparable.
Observation observing itself through the forms which compose it makes observation as a thing in itself as it exists independent self sustained entity not dependent on anything other than itself given observation is form, form exists through form, thus observation exists through observation. This is considering the same branching form found in nature, under veins, lightning, rivers, or even a genealogy is the same branching form found in the progression of one concept to many. The branching form which underlies observation thus making it exist through observation.
This branching form reflects further through the origin of the word "genius" under the prefix "gen" which reflects a creative capacity and shows, self reflectively, the tautological nature of one set of symbols, “gen” in this case, manifesting into newer and newer forms:

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

It is this act of creation being through the creation of definition that necessitates "definitions" as "gods" given that each definition is an apex of multiple existing phenomenon with the “god’ being an apex of some facet of existence.
This may seem obscure at first.
When we define something, we encapsulate it into something we can relate to. This definition in turn acts a guiding measure for our lives, much like a god. We see this in the story of a hero's journey where the hero, as the embodied definition of virtues, is emulated by those listening to the story. The hero is the apex of specific qualities and as such acts as a directive for people's lives.
We see this with basic prayers or mantras to a lesser god, in polytheistic faiths, where some element in the psyche the god represents is viewed as an entity in itself. For example, a person praying to the god of war is actually meditating on the nature of war and embodying these patterns (courage, intelligence, etc.). Patterns, when anthropomorphized, are gods. These gods are the mythos or stories of interplaying aspects of the psyche. These interplaying aspects of the psyche, through the inherently empty nature of its assumptive capacity, are interplaying forms. Interplaying forms are patterns. The pattern, when not viewed as anthropomorphized, is the “logos”, "word" or "plan". This at its core is just symbolism. Words are symbols, symbols are patterns. Plans are definitions through words, thus patterns as well. So when worshipping the "god of War" the psyche assumes patterns of what war is and integrates them.
A basic pattern, under this example, would be "divergence" or the ability to take one thing and reduce it to multiple states. We see this in war. It is taking one side, that of the enemy, and reducing it to “parts”. Thus we seek how a god of War may have as sibling the god of Wisdom or "analysis" considering this same process of divergence manifests itself in a variety of manners.
Thus these stories, or definitions of reality, are created gods we worship by assuming there basic behavior and losing one's identity to this behavior. This loss of self to the "god" is an act of sacrifice, and in a simpler agrarian culture where one worked and was paid in food, the sacrifice of food was a sacrifice of a part of their inherent identity, be that food, in those simpler times. However, the act of sacrifice is multidimensional as what constitutes the "I", as a series of patterns, is multidimensional. Considering the "I" is a series of patterns, any act of sacrifice is the loss of one pattern for another as the inversion of one pattern into another. Sacrifice is the embracing of the intrinsic emptiness of the self with this emptiness of the self being embodied through the looping of patterns which do not exist in and of themselves but only through a self-negation into a newer pattern. In simpler terms, sacrifice is self negation with the universal nature of self negation reflecting a sacrificial quality which exists through all phenomenon. This further reflects a degree of self-awareness which branches across all phenomena.
Stories, or rather definitions, are the means of reaching deep into the collective unconsciousness, through which we assume reality, and pulling out basic archetypal patterns and embodying them by sacrifice under the loss of one identity and its replacement with a new one. This loss of personal identity, for the manifestation of a hopefully higher identity, is the negation of one pattern for another with this negation of the pattern being grounded in its inherent emptiness as a potentially new pattern.
Stories are just patterns of behavioral manipulation created through symbol manipulation where one set of symbols, that of the story, act as mediators to an identity transition where some aspect of the self is guided and reformed into a newer self. Considering the self is composed of loops the story acts as an empty pattern where the emptiness of the story is the potentiality of the individual to form a new identity. Stories are gods and gods are stories. They are worshiped or "praised" when they are told. This telling and retelling of a story is the repetition of abstractions resulting in forms which are embodied and physicalized. The universal symbolic nature of all phenomenon, and the symbolic nature which underlies the story, necessitates being as being an unfolding story which is perpetually telling and retelling itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

XXV
Stories, as a series of definitions around a given proposition, are thus philosophical in nature as a given thesis and antithesis which revolve mostly around the dualism of good and evil which reflects the good and lesser good or being and non-being. This interplay of opposing opposites necessitates the story, through its origins in philosophy, as synthetic definition creation both within the act of story telling itself and the behavioral changes which occur through the embodiment of the story under the mimicking of it in real life. This mimicking of the story in real life reflects the basic process of recursion which underlies all phenomena. Stories are thus actions of distinction as the means of change from one phenomenon, that of the observer, and another phenomenon, that of either another observer or a sub- identity within the observer.
Philosophy and all acts of reason are thus rule creation, rules are means of defining an entity by presenting a guiding boundary through which being operates, thus philosophy is definition creation as limit creation. This definition creation, as the creation of symbols, akins philosophy to the telling of a story or stories.
The paradox about philosophy, and all acts of reasoning, is if you break the rules it still exists as philosophy, or even rational for that matter, given a created assertion exists as some grade of truth through existence alone. I may argue 2=2=5 but this still necessitates both 2 and 5 existing as rational entities given their composition of 1 repeating itself. Dually the contradiction is always defined as a contradiction thus is true as a contradiction. A false definition is still a definition as to what a phenomenon is not, yet it is composed of truer definitions which underlie it thus an element of truth always exists within falsity.
This breaking of rules and creation of new rules is reflected within the equivocation of one context to an entirely new context that determines how reality is interpreted. This is reflected again in the nature of storytelling as a process of definition which is akin to "philosophy" or “reason”.
Stories are a series of words which form the abstractions necessary to direct the human condition to a higher state. These stories, as words, are repeated as a series of mantras that give a lasting image through which humanity is formed. A story is repeated and this repeated story forms the unactualized subconscious into a conscious state where man becomes that which is repeated. It acts as a pattern imprinted on the empty mindedness through which we assumed reality thus acts like a filter through which we interpret reality. The pattern creation of story telling is the same pattern creation which defines philosophy for what it is.
It is through the use of analogy and metaphor, in which a story is formed, that a resulting definition and redefinition of reality occurs.
These analogies and metaphors tie together seemingly separate phenomena into a common bond of working together to produce a different state of consciousness through a newly observed form. Dually these tied phenomena show a common bond under which certain patterns are repeated thus reflecting reality as a series of super positioned forms where one form occurs across a multitude of states. For example, the parable, a story, of the difficulty a rich man's ability to reach salvation being equivalent to a "camel passing through the eye of a needle" represents the tying together of seemingly different qualities, such as "camel" and "needle" under a message of "difficulty". One set of images relates to another resulting in the abstract tying together of phenomenon to form an image beyond the qualities themselves.
“A camel” and “needle” reflects a common underlying form of “hardship” under both respective phenomenon while dually the overlaying of both images results in a new form in which both phenomena are interpreted. In simpler terms “the camel through an eye of a needle” is a variation of the phenomenon of “hardship”. It is this image creation, through which mankind operates, that guides the forming of the subconscious into a new state. This formation of overlaid forms is how we assume reality.
For further example, the analogous comparison of phenomena to machines necessitates an inherent zeitgeist of domination between classes. The machine, specifically the robot, is determined by an inherent input/output of commands through which a phenomenon responds according to the orders given. It is this input/output of orders which necessitates an inherent subservience of the robot as equivalent to a slave.
With the analogy of comparing a phenomenon to a machine/robot, be the phenomenon nature or man, comes an inherent subconscious approach to viewing reality as subservient to another class of being. One class of being actualized and another is left in an unactualized state supporting the efforts of those actualizing. This subservience reflects an inherent zeitgeist of dominance between beings where phenomena are less viewed as working together for a common good to a dialogue between master and servant.
This master/slave dialectic is rooted in the nature of computation, with computation being rooted in a basic input/output mode of being equivalent to a process of giving and taking orders. The analogous approach of comparing phenomenon to "systems" is an analogous approach to an act of domination which promotes an intrinsic separation between phenomenon as that which rules and that which is ruled. This further reflects a class distinction that promotes inequality and an opposing dualistic tension between beings. This inequality is the expression of the inability for all being to reach a fully individualized mode of being except at the expense of another group.
This artificial tension, created through the idolization of physical phenomenon through pragmaticism, where efficiency of operation towards a higher state or class is demanded, results in an inherent slave state where the ability to carve reality into forms (much in the same manner physical being is formed and reformed into technology) reflects the promotion of an upper and lower class rooted in the pursuit of luxury for one and the act of perpetual serfdom for another. One state of being acts as a subservient “machine” for another.
Technology is the idolization of luxury, a freedom from working together with being, in an effort to create a ruling class and a series of automatons that subject their own nature to that of pleasing the whims of an upper class. This artificially created dichotomy represents a deeper underlying theme of struggle between the classes where technology reflects an increasing dehumanization of human work in an effort to create a slave state of those who support it where commands are given and received without question. Those which received and operate under commands are the machines of said society. This absence of questioning is an absence of the degree of freedom necessary for individuation to occur in a manner where being is able to reach a higher state. The inability to question is the inability to "know" a higher source through the form of dialectic where authority is tested and retested through the application of questions until an authority is revealed as self-evident
It is the continual analogies of being to "systems", "machines" or "robots", which reflect a class struggle with this "root" being "watered" under the term of "computation". "Computation" is another word for "orders" with these orders being followed without question at the expense of freedom of being.
"Computation", as "orders", is thus another means of defining reality through a process of storytelling where the original nature of the story, as a means of guiding human behavior into a higher state, is replaced to a theme of serfdom under the “program” or “that which directs”. The nature of the story is replaced with that of the “program” where one, be it the story, acts as a means of behavioral change and the other, be it the program, acts as a means of behavioral direction. These stories are rooted in creating a series of forms, much in the same manner as a program, meant to guide human behavior. The difference being one of their natures where the story acts as a guide to identity change and the program acts as a means of directing said identity in a loop which never really transcends or changes itself. Computation thus becomes a new "god" as the "god" is a series of words, through stories, which act as repeated mantras which direct the human capacity to act. With the change of interpreting reality to one of "input/output" is a change of the human condition to one of a sole pursuit of baser instincts through the "god" called luxury.
The analogies of being operating as "systems", grounded in "computation", reflects a paradigm shift in how reality is interpreted under a series of gods equitable to stories that guide the human condition. It is this advancement or progress within analogies over the course of human history that leads to a greater obscurity of the human condition given with the progress of definition of one thing comes at the cost of superseding what existed prior. This can be seen under the example of technology where with the invention of greater tools comes an absence of the human condition given it is being replaced by machines.
Work is replaced by an elitism in technological progress where that which produces the most supersedes that which existed prior thus binding the person to the newer terms of the exterior working conditions through which they exist. This comes at the cost of change within interior condition thus necessitating the individual being stuck within a singular self-feedback loop of basic instincts which never progress naturally past their origins. These newer conditions replace the individual for that of the machine and a change in interior self never occurs as the change of the exterior self replaces the individual by binding them to a more detached style of work where the individual is needed less and less. This absence of individuality in work is an absence of distinction within the individual thus promoting less and less change as less and less work necessary for interior development is made apparent through the progress of the exterior environment.

With the advancement of philosophy comes the same problems and behaviors of technological elitism where the average person is bounded by ideologies which are rarely put to question, much like various advances in technologies are not resisted, due to the advancement of a language into what only specific elites can understand. These technologies are used but rarely understood and the same applies for the progression of philosophy and the philosophical language in which it entails. The expansion of language mirrors this same nature of that of the expansion of technology: neither are resisted but only accepted and this acceptance leads to a greater obscurity of the human condition where the inherent emptiness of all phenomenon, including the self, is replaced by an assumed fullness that prohibits any personal progression or development due to the absence of accepting said emptiness and inverting it into form.
Where the natural progress of the self occurs through its intrinsic emptiness and change from one identity to a higher identity, a change occurs in the exterior self through the intrinsic emptiness of its surrounding environment. The embracement of one degree of emptiness, interior, over another, the of the exterior, promotes a different degree of change. The progress of one phenomenon, the self in this case, leads to the obscurity of another considering with the progression of one phenomenon to another comes a lack of clarity as to its roots. Where individual interior progress contains the interior emptiness of the self through the manifestation of self-referential loops under the formation of identity, the interior self is left as completely void of definition through an emphasis on what is exterior. A progression past the interior into the exterior is a progression past individual change into a change of the exterior environment alone where the individual becomes of serf of its surrounding influences.
The self, through its intrinsic emptiness, allows for progress past the self into a newer self, but when this intrinsic emptiness is replaced for progress of exterior self a lack of personal change results. One form of emptiness is replaced by another therefore progress is thus twofold and acts as a means of negation where self referentiality becomes less and less in one respect and more and more so in another. Self referentiality interiorly is replaced by an exterior self referentiality.
Where work is grounded under a single cycle of repeating one thing and changing oneself as an adaptation to the one thing, the exterior environment is changed instead at the expense of interior change. The loop of self-referentiality in defining a personal identity is replaced by a series of self-referential technological loops where technology is the be all end all thus replacing individuality and the self referentiality necessary for identity in which it entails. One cycle, that of maintaining an interior identity, is replaced by multiple cycles which reflect the maintenance of an exterior identity.
Progress thus acts as a double edge sword where one means of change is manifested at the expense of the other with the question of seeking what to change becomes a forefront question. Where once the intrinsic emptiness of the self was contained through self-referential forms the identity of what is exterior to the self is replaced by a series of ever changing forms. One series of forms over routes another series of forms thus negating one means of containing the emptiness of being through another. It is the containment of nothingness through forms which is necessary for the maintenance of any identity. With the emphasis on exterior forms comes a paradoxical negation of interior form and vice versa. This interior form is the formation of the sense of “I”, the promotion of exterior form is an absence of the “I”. The “I” is determined as both the form and function of pattern formation.

Philosophy as a tool is language as a tool with the perpetual advancement of language effectively leaving many people to wander through an existential crisis under a blur of words which exist out of the common range of the individual. This reflects equivocally to certain tools being created which negate human labor, thus the human condition all together.

In seeking progress in survival there comes a double edge sword. The same progress meant for survival is that which can reduce it as well. This survivability of course being both literal and existential. It is this nature of storytelling that necessitates all definitions as a progression of the human condition across time where one state of being is negated through another state of being. With the change in times comes a change in the basic analogies used to represent mankind. This change comes at the cost of the negation of the old through the obscurity of the old. One identity is replaced by another with the replacement of identities being the manifestation of survival. With the progress past the interior, to the exterior, comes a negation of the interior in place of the exterior.
This guiding of the human condition, through the story, necessitates all definitions as extensions of the human condition itself. All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated. The same occurs with the negation of any interpretation of reality for another.
This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s, both interior and exterior, that results in definition of the "I". The “I” is composed of both one and many identities.
There is no argument separate from the observer as the assertion deemed separate from the observer is in itself observed as unobservable. A contradiction entails from this. Projection of an assertion necessitates it as an extension of the observer thus real as the observer is real.
All arguments, as extensions of the observer, are authoritative by their assertive nature. The projection of an angle of awareness necessitates the argument's authority in the respect the observer is the origin point of the assertion presented. The authoritative nature of the argument is thus grounded in the authority of the subjective angle as a particular means of expressing one degree of a multifaceted phenomenon.
Authority is individuation of assertion as a particular angle of awareness where the angulature of the perceived phenomenon acts as a singular reference point that reflects an apex in understanding given one angle is distinct from another. It acts as the singular point of change from one degree of awareness into a new one thus is forefront and exists as an singular point of understanding in itself. Understanding acts as a means of change. This authority, through angulature of awareness, references the multi-grade nature of any given assertion where truth as multidimensional is multiple authorities of any given subject as approximations of one single subject through a variety of angles.
Existence is authority and existence is multidimensional, authority thus represents itself through grades where the highest authority is that which is closest to the center point of many meanings as an angle which encompasses many meanings.
Truth as defined by that which is closest to the center point necessitates the true/false dichotomy as a false dichotomy given the expression of contexts reflect truth values to have multiple grades of meaning. Truth occurs through fractals, fractals through grades, grades as distinctions, distinctions as singular reference points. Each reference point is the embodiment of change to another reference point; thus a truth is a means of change from one state into another. The change of one phenomenon to another is the underlying set of conditions of phenomenon, one of change.
The change of phenomenon, one into another, is an underlying self-referential loop given one change repeats itself to another change. Formlessness, in contrast to form, is repeated in such a manner where the totality of truth in itself is formless until distinctions are made thus resulting in a contrast between the “one” and the “many”. This contrast necessitates the many as contexts which are derived from the one and the one being derived from the many.
All contexts are derived from a dual truth/false value given the contexts through which they are presented. For example, "a unicorn exists" maintains a simultaneous true and false value. It maintains a true value under the context of "dream entity" and a false value under the context of "empirical entity".
The dichotomy is presented through the context in which the truth value is expressed, but considering this context is always one to further expansion so the truth/false value follows the same nature. All contexts are thus simultaneously true/false with this necessitating an either/or expression of truth, as true or false, being a false dichotomy. This false dichotomy is the necessitated by an inherent middle term given within all assertions. All phenomena equate through a middle context. A "fire" and a "brick" are equal through the “color red”. This middle context connects and equivocates seemingly different phenomena. This middle context is empty in itself thus diverges to further contexts. For example, the color red diverges into the seemingly different phenomena of "fire" and "brick".
All phenomena are thus grounded in the convergence and divergence of contexts. This convergence and divergence of phenomena necessitates all phenomena as dynamic. One phenomenon expands into further phenomena and then reconverges into a newer state. This convergence and divergence of phenomena mandates that knowledge possesses a degree of self-negation through the nature of categorization where one category eventually replaces another. For example, Pluto was once deemed as a planet, then it regressed to "Dwarf Planet".
All knowledge, as categorical, is subject to change in which definition is a process of individuation where one phenomenon is singularized into a set of relations. This set of relations, as the phenomenon, is the apex of a series of parts that underlie all parts.
One phenomenon, as underlying many, is the summation of a variety of parts where a common bond stretches across many phenomena. This common bond results in knowledge as categorical where the category is a process of change as the summation of a series of parts. This summation of parts is the change of one set of parts to another. An example of this can be seen under the example of a horse. The horse is a series of parts (legs, head, tail, etc.) that morph into one another with the horse being the apex of these changes as the common underlying form which occurs across these parts. Each category is an apex of change through a singularizing of multiple changes into one set of phenomena.
Dually knowledge as singularizing is knowledge as changing. To create a category, from the multitude of relations within the totality of being, is to individuate one phenomenon from the whole and create an event change. This event change is the application of boundaries as a phenomenon itself with the application of boundaries being the manifestation of distinction. The one, as distinct in itself, is continually changing through the distinctions which manifest across it. As perpetually changing “the one” is continually referencing itself under newer and newer forms which are variations, thus connections, of it. This continual variation, through repetition, mandates each new variation as a connection to the source of the “one” with this connection necessitates the “many” as existing through the “one”.
This distinction, through the boundaries applied to a localization of the “one”, results in an isomorphism where the boundaries create a form whose exterior nature, that which surrounds the phenomenon, mirrors that of the interior, that which the phenomena contains. This isomorphism between the interior and exterior results in the form itself as a median between the two. It is this form, which contains both an inner and outer state, which exists through a pure curvature alone with this curvature existing as a means of distinction.
An example of this would be the boundaries of a square where the interior of the square inversely replicates that of the exterior. In looking at a picture of the exterior space of the square results in a gap within the picture in the shape of a square. Dually the square in the picture observes the square as a form in itself. The boundaries of the square reproduce a square internally, as the square itself, and exteriorly as the gap in the picture which is the shape of a square. The boundaries of the square result in the lines which form the square as an emergence of forms. In simpler terms the lines of the square are the means of distinction between an interior and exterior reality thus are an isomorphism of forms. Isomorphism is inseparable from form given isomorphism results in limits. The inversion of the inner to the outer and vice versa results in limits.
The relation of the lines of the square, as having an inner and outer nature, result in the lines being grounded in isomorphism as a phenomenon in itself.
This can be seen logically as well through the equals sign “=” where the sign acts as a distinction between numbers. In 2+2=1+3 the beginning of the formula mirrors the end of the formula where the equals sign itself acts as a means of distinction between these numbers. The beginning of the formula is the isomorphism of the end of the formula and vice versa. The formula “curves” or rather “forms” itself through the boundary of the “equals” sign. This equals sign is empty in and of itself, much like the dividing line within a glass of water between the water and the air, and is observed strictly through a contrast.
Each boundary acts as a means of distinction as an event change.
For example, in applying a test to a rat's behavior, the results of the test measure how the rat responds to the test, not how they respond to the surroundings natural for it. Even though a test may mimic closely the rat's natural environment it does not cover all the variables, only select few. The test's singularization of certain variables in the rat's environment result in a new series of variables which cause a small change, however unnoticeable, in the rat's behavior. In isolating a phenomenon, or a series of phenomena, a new phenomenon occurs. This isolation is the application of boundaries.
This categorical nature of phenomena necessitates the act of reflection as pivotal in identity formation. Reason requires a process of self-reflection where a previously subjective state is magnified into an objective one. This objectivity is pattern formation. The subjective state, that of personal experience, is repeated through force of habit resulting in the objective identity of the observer through the manifestation of a series of actions that are given form through recursion.
For example, in reflecting upon a series of actions, such as an exercise routine, this routine is repeated in the intellect until it manifests itself as the exercise routine itself. Reflection is the giving of structure to the intellect where some fleeting thought repeats itself until it becomes part of the identity of the observer. This repetition of a phenomenon, as form resulting in form, is the replication of certain boundaries, in this case the boundaries which compose the exercise routine
Reflection is analytical as well, as the breaking down of experience into a new one. For example, a bad habit, such as smoking, is a series of experiences which are imprinted upon the intellect. This pattern is broken down into its root causes, such as anxiety causing the smoking, then into a new pattern where the old pattern is negated, that of not smoking and with the replacement of smoking with exercise instead.
The act of reflection is thus a formation of patterns through a repetition of thought and the inversion of one set of thoughts into another. Reflection is thus two fold. It converges repeated thoughts into a series of actions; dually it diverges repeated thoughts into a series of actions.
Reflection thus is the manifestation of a series of actions, that exist as extensions of thought, as the ingraining of further thought. The ingraining of thought is the self-assuming of patterns and the assuming of patterns lies within the manifestation of action. A thought results in an action and this action results in a further series of thoughts. One set of patterns, abstract, result in another set of patterns, the empirical and vice versa.. The “I” exists through a series of repeated loops under the assuming of patterns.

The first loop is that where the self is directed away from itself through an exterior experience which imprints itself on the I. An example of this would be the watching of an exercise program and having this program, as knowledge, imprint itself on the psyche.
The second loop is that where the self, as imprinted, is directed in towards itself in manner where the exterior imprints are broken down into further imprints which are then reformed into a new sense of self. An example of this would be the reflection on the imprinted exercise programs and the incorporation of it into the psyche through repetition as in inherent part of the psyche. In reflecting upon the imprint of the exercise program comes a self-imprinting of it through repetition.
The third loop is the alternation between the exterior and interior imprints. This would be the imprinting of the program on the psyche, the breaking down of the pattern into a new series of patterns which are repeated in the psyche thus projected with further exterior imprinting followed by further interior imprinting. The exercise program is imprinted and reflected upon until it is broken down into base forms (as the basics of the execrises), the action is then projected until a series of results from the basic forms of the exercise occur exteriorly, then the results that occur exteriorly are imprinted interiorily and the cycle between the interior and exterior is repeated.
Reflection thus takes the nature of a trifold cycle which manifests the identity of the self through a series of patterns.
This root of reflection is founded in solitude and silence, where the patterns which form the identity express themselves without distraction. This silence represents the absence of distractions as the absence of forms. This distraction is the division of awareness as one form divided through another. For example in solitude one may observe “x”, however with the introduction of a new person in the environment the observation of “x” is divided through the actions of the introduced individual which are represented as “y”. “x” may observe one degree of awareness, with the introduction of “y” comes a division of “x” through “y”.
Division of awareness is the division of the sense of “I”. Division of the sense of “I” is the direction of the ‘I’ away from itself towards an exterior experience alone, or the direction of the “I” only towards itself through self-absorption. It is the act of reflection of the “I” which forms a series of loops as repeated actions and thoughts which determine the identity of the “I”.
As extensions of consciousness, which are real given the circular nature of self-reflection results in the form of the circle and all forms are real “as is”, all phenomena are real in and of themselves as extensions of that said consciousness. All phenomena used for measurement (ie "points", "lines" and "circles" or any symbol) are real through the consciousness. This can be expressed under the example of schematics where the abstractions used to form a base material into an object are in themselves real. The abstraction is the application of form onto the empirical. As extensions of the consciousness all measurements, as the application of boundaries, are real.
It is the reality of a phenomena, through consciousness, which necessitates all being as reduced to forms given the symbol which manifests through consciousness in itself a form. Form is being, and this being is grounded in space given all form is grounded in curvature as previously mentioned. Space is self-evident "as is" and reflects the basic nature of the subconsciousness as being fundamentally formless. The same empirically observed nature of void, as the formlessness of a physical phenomenon, is the same void which appears through the senses of the mind. Space, through forms, is the underlying principle of consciousness thus reason and therefore philosophy.
This necessitates philosophy, therefore reason, as having underlying principles given its root being in space with space being axiomatic. This axiomatic nature of space is reflected in the nature of it being strictly sensed “as is” and accepted for what it is without distinction as it is the means of distinction. It is this absence of distinction in observing space that reflects not just its purely axiomatic nature but also the means through which axioms are formed and accepted. Space is the grounding axiom of philosophy, and reason as the individuation of boundaries, but in observing space as this grounding a paradox occurs given any formation of a grounding principle results in this formation of grounding principles as a grounding principle in itself:

1. Philosophy cannot be reduced to general principles without these general principles being responsible for themselves under a circularity.
2. This avoidance of circularity is a detriment to philosophy as it is an underlying core to its assertions.
3. The avoidance of this circularity is the avoidance of the nature of philosophy as being strict assertions.
4. Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.
5. A proposition is stated and assumed as having a truth value, when in all actuality this truth value is grounded in the "as isness" where truth comes from existence alone.
6. All assertions are true as existing, the "principle" as a mode of stating something exists is a statement of something existing in a certain manner with the principle derived from existence as existence.
7. Any general principle presented through philosophical discourse necessitates the principle being an assertion, nothing more or less.
8. The assertion exists precisely because the assertion exists, thus being exists because being exists.
9. This assertion is the localization of one phenomenon out of many, with there being an absence of principle in determining which assertion precedes another.
10. The beginning assertion exists as a projection of the observer, thus what decides which assertion is not only chosen but precedes another assertion is the dialectic.
11. This dialectic is grounded in a cycling between perspectives, thus adding a deeper degree of circularity to the phenomenon.
12. The prime role of determining principles is the dialogue and this is a principle.
13. This principle is grounded in a circularity as the dialogue is defined through dialogue
14. The principle mode of dialogue is the application of fallacies.
15. These fallacies can be applied to the fallacies thus not only negating the fallacy, but necessitating the fallacy as strictly a negative limit as that which the argument is not.
16. Truth value exists in the assertion alone, as the assertion is underlined by the fact it exists therefore the fallacies are irrelevant except as a means of defining the grades of truth within an assertion.
17. All assertions exist a truth values regardless of the fallacies applied.
18. This truth value is grounded in the principle of circularity which determines all assertions as existing because they exist.

It is these assertions, expressed through words, that necessitates a degree of truth value is grounded in the existence of language itself precisely because language exists. Words are defined by their relationship to other words and phenomena and as such their meaning changes in accords to their usage, yet truth value exists regardless of meaning. There is no constant meaning other than the context of usage. For example, a descriptive word such as "red" means "color", yet this "color" can mean a variety of things such as an "apple" or "car". Yet regardless of meaning, a truth value is mandated by reason of its assertive nature alone considering language is pure assertion.
Truth by existence alone is necessitated by meaning as the direction of one word to another word, or one phenomena to another, with this directional nature acting as the process of definition itself. Definition is existence, existence is truth, thus definition is truth.
This directional nature to meaning reflects a nature of consistency which determines truth values. This consistency is the connection of one assertion to another through its replication in a new form. 2+2=4 is consistent considering 2+2 repeats itself in a newer variation as 4.
Truth is derived solely from consistency where an inconsistent statement such as 2 + 2 = 5 still necessitates 2 and 5 as existing as true in the respect they exist. 2 and 5 show consistency through the replication of the counted phenomena which form them, yet it is also true that 2+2=5 is a contradiction. On one hand truth exists through consistency, on the other hand the truth of 2+2=5 is true as inconsistent.
Any contradiction, as inconsistent, is derived from truth values which are true as existing. This existence is consistency. This consistency is replication. 2+2=5 is true as a contradiction, in other words it is true to state a contradiction occurs. 2+2=5 repeats as a consistent contradiction.
One could state that truth value is necessitated by consistency, with there being multiple grades of consistency, but this does not negate the fact with the absence of consistency that consistency does not exist. One can have an inconsistent statement with multiple sub consistencies available thus necessitating that while consistency is necessary for truth an absence of consistency still allows for consistency to exist.
Consistency thus breaks down to a dualism between holism and fragmentation, as in what is whole and what is fragmented reflects what is consistent and what is inconsistent. This holism represents a singular state as the phenomenon itself being distinct when compared to nothing, this fragmentation represents a state of multiplicity where the distinction of the phenomena point to their intrinsic emptiness in itself in relationship to another. Dually holism represents an amorphous singularity thus emptiness and multiplicity results in form through a comparison. Under these terms both singularity and multiplicity respectively contain a dualistic definition as to what defines them.
This dualism in defining the singularity of holism, and the respective dualism for multiplicity, necessitates a triadic nature to the underlying order of being where the one is expressed through many and the many is expressed through one with the grounding being “being” itself under a series of repeated empty loops which exist as one repeated loop paradoxically. Being is both empty and non-empty as represented through a series of rings containing empty rings.
It is this paradox that necessitates all being as grounded within a paradox with this paradox being the beginning of any philosophical or rational discourse. All begins and ends in paradox with this beginning and ending of paradox necessitating a common form of recursion and isomorphism occurring. This continual nature, or rather quality, of recursion and isomorphism necessitates a series of underlying laws through the contexts in which they exist. The context of course being the axiomatic “as is” nature of any state of being.
However, this dualism of the paradox in singularity and multiplicity is complimentary thus wholeness and fragmentation are complimentary. This occurs much in the same manner where each phenomenon is a perpetual middle for another phenomena, given all phenomena share this same looping nature, while dually each phenomenon is empty in itself, given all phenomena as loops are intrinsically empty. For example a series of monads exists. Each monad is the reflection of one monad considering they all share the same form. One monad exists through many as each monad is empty in itself considering the singular monad, through which all replicate, is empty in itself.
Dually the multitude of monads reflects the one monad in multiple states, or rather multiple positions, at the same time. So while the one monad exists, it exists in relative multiple states with these multiple states being the expression of the one under an infinite series of forms. Each form is an approximation of "The One". The monad exists as both one and many. One as the underlying base through all forms. Many as the series of forms which exist as approximations of the one. It is this definition through the monad which reflects all truths as being inherently empty in and of themselves, inherent middles to further phenomena and contextual loops through which all phenomena are connected and exist through an “as is-ness”.

[Fairy]

Look for what is looking.

[mickthinks]

This thread is astounding!

[Eodnhoj7]

This thread is astounding!

It is an unpublished book of mine.

[Fairy]

This thread is astounding!

It is an unpublished book of mine.

Many authors appear, but there’s only one reading writing no one ever writ.

Nothing’s for sale.

[accelafine]

What fresh hell is this?