Given the self-evidence of existence 'being', and the occurence of said self evidence 'being' as well with the relationship between the phenomena occuring and the self evidence of the phenenomena occuring with this relationship being an occurence, the self referential recursive quality of occurence through occurence as occurence by nature is a process of distinction that simultaneously connects and seperates the conceptualization of experience by nature of paradox and contradiction given the connection of occurences as an occurence creates an inherent unity of occurence while it dually allows for a degree of seperation from other occurences by nature of being distinct and localized.
Observing this in a simpler degree would be to see a tree as to connect experienced attributes such as bark and leaves into a cohesive localized reality while dually separating this very same tree from the field as a distinct localization of phenomena.
Unity under these terms, and in these respects, requires a paradoxical seperation from other occurences so as to achieve a sense of definition or distinction thus relegating distinction as synonymous to paradox by occurence.
Dually seperation allows for a percieved unity between and through occurences given the continual seperation of occurence results in a paradox of all things being connected by the quality of being distinct or localized considering that percieved differences between what occurs necessitates an underlying quality, ie being localized or a singleton, that connects amidst the seperation.
In these respects, to make a simple observation, both a tree and field are distinct from eachother and yet by their shared nature of contrast they are united under the quality of being distinct, of being localized. If everything is different than in specific respects that are the same by this underlying quality.
Occurence is simultaneously connection and seperation with connection and seperation being fundamental distinctions which occur. A paradox ensues by nature of these distinctions for to observe these would be to observe occurence through occurence as both seperate and united further resulting in a negation where neither distinction are seperate nor united. Occurence as connected to itself leaves it as self similar and effectively nothing due to lack of contrast. Occurence as seperate to itself leaves an absence of similarity to such an extent that it is effectively nothing due to lack of repeated distinctions.
The occurence of pure connection would be effectively nothing given no distinction would occur.
The occurence of pure seperation would be effectively nothing given no distinction would occur.
Pure connection and pure seperation effectively become one and the same in these regards as there is no distinction between each as both are effectively nothing. While opposites relativistically speaking they are same same by an absolute unchanging nature.
Occurence as purely distinction leaves no contrast for distinction to be thus leaving it indistinct, nothing.
Occurence as purely nothing is a paradox as the absence thingness is a distinction of absence.
Occurence under these terms becomes its own absence of foundation and requires relation to achieve identity and yet if occurence is the irreducible reality of experience, and the unlimited apex of experience, than occurence by nature resorts to a fundamental reality of being synonymous in terminology and conceptualization to that of 'paradox'.
The paradox exhibits grades however as irreducibility is merely infinite reducibility where the continual process of reduction leaves nothing effectively reduced as the act of reduction is unchanged, dually an unlimited apex reflects continual progression in such a manner that progression itself does not progress as the act of progression is unchanging. Paradox under these terms is not limited to opposites but the process of infinite gradation that effectively eliminates change at a more central level as gradation is a constant function resulting in a static form by nature of being unchanging within a given context.
We experience by occurence, with experience being an occurence, and yet occurence reflects an inherent absurdity in purely an unjustified existence that is the act of justification itself.
Paradox becomes a rational aspect of experience given the simple distinction of connection and seperation it provides. To see a rational circle is to see a paradox of the space within and without the circle simultaneously connected and seperated by the circle itself where the rational form of the circle is the paradox itself. The basic law of identity follows this same paradigm as A=A leaves A defined by recursion and yet the nature of "=" connecting A to A by nature of self similarity while dually showing two distinct A that are not similar by nature of each being distinct. "Equality" is the limit by which connection through unifying similarity and seperation through separating distinctions.
Rational foundations of experience thus are the paradox, as both the beginning and end to things given a beginning and end are limits which provide distinction, where paradox observes reason as a justified distinction grounded in a justification that either lacks further justification or requires an indefinite regress to do so thus leaving a groundless infinity of potential and actual phenomena where spontaneity of occurence is the final say as to what is coherent and what is not as a before and after is made evident to some degree.
Spontaneity is the foundation by nature as reality just appears by virtue of unnecessary justification where justification occurs by occurence and yet is ungrounded by the mere effects of spontaneously induced change that leaves foundations as merely unnecessary, by virtue of inevitable looping regresses of cause, and yet it so nonetheless thus nullifying necessity as the sole justification for phenomena to occur.
In regards to seeking foundations occurence gives the impression of a subtle and deep, yet simple and obvious, approach to knowledge that both contains and moves beyond itself by virtue of "just being" as the change that relagates phenomena to being distinct is not only strictly movement but simultaneously leaves any notion of stability as merely an observation of different rates of change that enable the experience of a phenomena to occur, with this phenomena being an occurence and the experience of it an occurrence as well leaving change as not being an external experience but dually an internal one. In simpler terms a tree is merely a different rate of change from a field, thus leaving all distinctions as fundamentally being ratios in the conceptual sense where the ratio is the distinction of embodied connection and seperation which makes occurence synonymous to paradox. This nature of ratios of change, by virtue of being distinctions, leaving a process that is fundamentally static in nature given the process does not change: connection and seperation as inverse forms of unity. The foundations of what constitutes reason, ie conceptualized ratios of the various sorts, is akin to a sense of division and connection resulting in a holistic cycle in one respect and progressive change in another thus while occurence is dynamic the perpetual occurence of occurence is effectively static thus resulting in a deeper more nuanced paradox within the center of existence.
This progressive cycle of rationalizing occurence, as mentioned in the aforementioned 'occurence through occurence as occurence', necessitates an empty center within a symbolic revolving wheel of appearance where potentiality is the symbolic spoke of the symbolic wheel of the actual. The change of phenomena is merely the expansion and contraction of a cycle much in the same manner that a seed results in a tree and a tree results in a seed.
The occurence of nothing is the unmovable ever present potentiality which allows the transformative change of things to occur in the respect that the negation of a boundary through the act of change is an act of completion in achieving perfect unity, as perfect nothingness, while the appearance of a boundary is the paradoxical absence of absence, a pure nothingness where there is not even nothing as nothing is but a contrast to opposing being thus paradoxical on its own terms. Nothingness thus becomes the everpresent absolute by nature of being underlying potentiality which allows actualization to occur thus leaving an absolute unmoving cause as potentiality itself that is non linear by nature of an inherent universal groundlessness everpresent to all things actualizing. Potentiality is an absence of actuality thus is not a thing thus resulting in it effectively being an unchanging absolute nothing, an unmoved mover by virtue of spontaneous occurence of the actual and is subsequent occurence of its dissolution.
Occurence as nothing, or potentiality as the absence of actuality, takes on the role of pure negation thus negating said negation into a positive while dually it is a positive of positives leaving a negation of some degree of one positive relative to a greater or lesser one. In simpler terms to negate negation results in a positive and the positive of a positive leaves the negation of another positive. The paradox of occurence results in meta paradoxes and vice versa.
The transformative nature of occurence, as distinction alternating in and out of appearing, or rather giving impression upon that which is impressionable, requires an inherent cyclical nature grounded in the "phasing in and out phenomena" thus leaving the foundational form of occurence being, in symbolic terms, a sphere without circumferance with infinite centerpoints as each occurence through occurence is a cycle through a cycle, while dually the occurence being linearistic progression in all potential manners in a non-linear branching as the process of "phasing in" and "phasing out" progresses under the simple nature of the differences between eachother respectively as each effectively supersede eachother within a given context or in simpler terms "phasing in" and "phasing out" as meta-processes both progress towards eachother.
A deeper awareness of occurence results in it being, in symbolic terminology if not literal in some respects, akin to a corner less square where infinite squares within and without eachother observes only squares effectively being nothing. Occurence is it's own foundationless foundation justified purely through "just being" or it's "just is-ness" where potentiality as an unmoved mover exerts continual expansion and contraction of distinctions from and into nothingness as that which is complete is that which ceases to be given no change can further occur.
The foundational aspect of occurence results in a simple and subtle paradigm of interpreting reality where in depth truth, within the context of philosophy, is less about pursuit of truth and more of an awareness of the obvious where a phenomenon is taken for what it is: a transient appearance justified by virtue of occuring with justification being reduced to a mere occurence, a paradoxical appearance evidence by contrast that allows for said distinction of it.
Absolute truth under this terms is fundamentally the form and function of paradox, given connection and seperation as the fundamental unchanging distinction of nothingness given on their own terms when observed purely, where relativistic truth is the necessary contrast to the absolute that gives it a metaphorical 'building' in which to exist by allowing one ratio of change to provide the context for another in a perpetually expanding and contracting cycle. Absolute nature is within a given context through perpetual context, relativistic nature is merely partially observed absolutes where different angles imply a change which is non-existent.
However if one is to claim the notion of pure paradox to reality then no paradox occurs as paradox takes on a rational and sensical notion of being and yet paradox must just be for any sense to occur from this observation. In simpler terms, if all is paradoxical then there is no paradox as this conceptualization eliminates absurdity in place of the sensicality of the concept but this sensicality must admit to absurdity if absurdity is to be observed.
In simpler terms "things just are" and investigation into this nature "just is".
The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Reality is merely the occurence of distinctions, by distinction relative forms exist and by relationship change where one change relative to another change results in what is static being merely a slower rate of change. By the occurence of distinctions the distinction of occurence occurs and thus distinction points to an inherent cyclical nature as the process of experience.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
******Singular draft
There is only occurence. Thoughts, emotions, sensations, physical and abstract things are occurences. Existence is an occurence. All is an occurence. What one experiences as consciousness is an occurence with subjectivity and objectivity being rooted in occurence.
The basic assertion of "I think therefore I am" is rooted in the occurence of thought as a sense of self but may be broadened to a deeper more holistic statement of "occurence through occurence as occurence just is" where all aspects of experience are rooted in occurence.
If all is occurence and the reduction of all to a singular phenonemonon is an occurence, thus necessitating occurence is recursive alternation of occurence through itself as meta occurences of and within further occurences, where occurence is simultaneously transitional of one occurence to another as an occurence, this necessitates occurence as a universal law of existence that is self evident, by nature of all things being reduced to occurences, for self evidence is an occurence and nothing can be reduced to anything more foundational and universal than the absolute nature of occurence, with this absolute nature of occurence being that occurence is ever present, with any definition of occurence also being an occurence.
The recursive nature of occurence necessitates occurence as cyclically self maintaining while linearly progressively changing as it alternates through change thus necessitating a spiral of occurences that spontaneously occurs and dissolves.
Occurence is recursive and alternating by nature thus necessitating the foundations of experience following this same nature as experience is an occurence.
The deepest occurence is the symbol for the symbol acts as the empirical and abstract means of transforming awareness and awareness determines how reality is influenced or manifested. Symbols manifest fully as language, literally and metaphorically, as a symbolic directs to that which is beyond itself.
The occurence of language and symbols embodies the form of an expanding and contracting cycle of a self referencing variation of definitions, an intuitive circlular and linear duality that creates spiral of occurences which spontaneously occurs as a point of awareness. Simply follow definitions in a dictionary to see this.
In other terms the occurence of language, as the grounding of consciousness through the literal and metaphorical nature of relative symbols, has a fourfold intuitive geometric processive nature, which occurs, thus reflecting occurence itself:
Cyclical maintenance (one definition leads to another then the new definition leads back)
Linear progression (one definition leads to another then another so on and so forth)
Spiraling transitioning (expanding and contracting variations of self reference in definitions
Point of spontaneity (the word and it's meaning just occurs)
This quadratic set of forms also determine how we process experience at the meta level of language, where the nature of experience being grounded in symbols necessitates the form and function of experience and language manifestation as fundamentally being interwoven.
One experience goes to another and the new experience cycles back to the old.
One experience leads to another than another than another linearly.
One experience is reinterpreted by another experience and a new experience occurs through a spiral.
One experience just spontaneously appears as a point of awareness.
Experience thus has a symbolic nature, empirically and abstractly, through immersion with forms or images which direct beyond themselves. This occurence of symbolic experience contains meta processes that are meta-symbolic experiences in themselves and follows a geometric paradigm intuitively. Symbolic experience is manifests intuitively through a line, circle, spiral and point. This fourfold geometric process influences itself:
The cycle is the maintenance of the symbolic experience. The cycle is manifested through the spiral as expanding or contracting self reference, through the line as the beginning and end cycle as new beginnings and ends, through the point that composes it and allows the spontaneous occurence of the cycle through it.
The line is the progression of the symbolic experience. The line is manifested through the spiral and cycle by a simple progression of one point to another and the point as composing both the line and the spontaneous occurence of the line.
The spiral is the transformation of the symbolic experience. The spiral is manifested through the circle as variations of self referentiality and the line observing progressive variation and the point composing it and manifesting the spiral spontaneously.
The point is the spontaneous occurence of the symbolic experience. The point composes these forms and these forms spontaneously occur from it. The point is the utmost paradox as both one and many points and limit and limitlessness.
The nature of occurence reflects through the basic paradigms by which reality is conceptualized as the conceptualization itself. Occurence manifests through a fourfold metaphysics of:
Monism which contains dualism.
Dualism which relates as monism.
Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism where one results in the other.
Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three.
Occurence has four identity laws which are the form and function of occurence as the nature of occurence itself, to speak of these "laws" would effectively observe the nature of occurence as an occurence within and through it. The following laws are:
1. Occurence.
2. The relationship of occurences.
3. The relationship being an occurence.
4. Occurence as empty, hence transitional.
Occurence occurs as distinction. Distinction simultaneously connects and seperates thus the grounding of paradox is distinction as not only a paradox is a distinction but the act of distinction, by means of simulatneous connection and seperation, is a paradox. A simple example is a circle, the circle is the space between the interior and exterior space as space between space as space. This space, the circle, connects and seperates the interior and exterior spaces simultaneously thus is paradoxical.
The occurence of reality through distinction is paradox and paradox is transitional given the paradox acts as a means of synthesis in one respect, where opposites result in a new phenomena, while dually allowing the refining of opposing phenomena by nature of there distinct contrasting natures. Transition is both refinement, by manifesting contrasting clarity, and creation, by creating a new state by nature of interrelated opposites. This transitional nature of occurence necessitates an occurence to manifest and dissolve through occurence, as one experiences things appearing and disappearing, and this results in occurence as fundamentally paradoxical as manifestation and dissolution are occurences thus the occurence alternates through itself and as such is dualistic by nature with this dualistic nature of occurence being an occurence. Occurence exists through alternation and this alternation is an occurence.
This dualism in and out of itself results in a further dualism where this alternation manifests a relationship to other occurences where the occurence simultaneously connects and seperates other occurences. For example a chair appears. The chair as distinct is seperate from the table next to it and this seperation results in a contrasting relationship which allows the chair to occur by standing apart from the table. However this contrast makes the chair dependent upon standing apart from table and this dependency results in a connective relationship.
From another respect the chair as distinct from the table, and vice versa, connects the qualities within the chair and table as the chair and table respectively by them being separated.
The occurence of the chair is simultaneously connected and separated from the table. All occurence simultaneously connects and seperates this is paradoxical as the relationship of simultaneous connection and seperation allows the occurence to transition and change. The change in one occurence affects the state of another and this change is context creation as the occurence itself.
Thus occurence is inseperable from paradox.
Occurence is it's own context as well considering there is only occurence and as its own context it is fundamentally empty. An example of this can be the cornerless square paradox:
There is a square with infinite square within and outside of it. This boundless number of squares makes the square its own context while simultaeously leaving a blank void as there are infinite squares within and without thus no visible square. The perfect square is no square hence the square is merely a process of transition to another square and is empty as such, occurence is a process of transition and empty as such.
This is the nature of experience as experience is grounded in occurence.
All of this is an occurence.
Experience is inseperable from existence in many respects.
Existence occurs relative to another existence thus is the attribute that occurs by nature of a percieved relationship between phenomena that allow them to be. This percieved relationship exists as a percieved distinction.
Existence is an attribute within an attribute as an existing tree gives the relative leaf to it the quality of also existing with these existences merely being a conceptual distinction that occurse through a recursive fractal process of applied distinctions: this gains existence from that existence and that existence gains existence from another existence. To speak of existence, through existing things (such as words, symbols and concepts) is merely philosophical bootstrapping where the observation of attributes is inseperable from the form and function of existence.
Given the self-evidence of existence 'being', and the occurence of said self evidence 'being' as well with the relationship between the phenomena occuring and the self evidence of the phenenomena occuring with this relationship being an occurence, the self referential recursive quality of occurence through occurence as occurence by nature is a process of distinction that simultaneously connects and seperates the conceptualization of experience by nature of paradox and contradiction given the connection of occurences as an occurence creates an inherent unity of occurence while it dually allows for a degree of seperation from other occurences by nature of being distinct and localized.
Observing this in a simpler degree would be to see a tree as to connect experienced attributes such as bark and leaves into a cohesive localized reality while dually separating this very same tree from the field as a distinct localization of phenomena.
Unity under these terms, and in these respects, requires a paradoxical seperation from other occurences so as to achieve a sense of definition or distinction thus relegating distinction as synonymous to paradox by occurence.
Dually seperation allows for a percieved unity between and through occurences given the continual seperation of occurence results in a paradox of all things being connected by the quality of being distinct or localized considering that percieved differences between what occurs necessitates an underlying quality, ie being localized or a singleton, that connects amidst the seperation.
In these respects, to make a simple observation, both a tree and field are distinct from eachother and yet by their shared nature of contrast they are united under the quality of being distinct, of being localized. If everything is different than in specific respects that are the same by this underlying quality.
Occurence is simultaneously connection and seperation with connection and seperation being fundamental distinctions which occur. A paradox ensues by nature of these distinctions for to observe these would be to observe occurence through occurence as both seperate and united further resulting in a negation where neither distinction are seperate nor united. Occurence as connected to itself leaves it as self similar and effectively nothing due to lack of contrast. Occurence as seperate to itself leaves an absence of similarity to such an extent that it is effectively nothing due to lack of repeated distinctions.
The occurence of pure connection would be effectively nothing given no distinction would occur.
The occurence of pure seperation would be effectively nothing given no distinction would occur.
Pure connection and pure seperation effectively become one and the same in these regards as there is no distinction between each as both are effectively nothing. While opposites relativistically speaking they are same same by an absolute unchanging nature as purely connection and pure seperation are effectively nothing and there is nothing to change within nothingness for if there where it would not be nothingness.
Occurence as purely distinction leaves no contrast for distinction to be thus leaving it indistinct, nothing.
Occurence as purely nothing is a paradox as the absence thingness is a distinction of absence.
Occurence under these terms becomes its own absence of foundation and requires relation to achieve identity and yet if occurence is the irreducible reality of experience, and the unlimited apex of experience, than occurence by nature resorts to a fundamental reality of being synonymous in terminology and conceptualization to that of 'paradox' as occurence it's its own context given there are no foundations but itself and the context by which it exists are mere recursive fractal much in the same manner of a metaphor of infinite spheres gaining context through eachother even though there is only a sphere in different states.
The paradox exhibits grades however as irreducibility is merely infinite reducibility where the continual process of reduction leaves nothing effectively reduced as the act of reduction is unchanged, dually an unlimited apex reflects continual progression in such a manner that progression itself does not progress as the act of progression is unchanging. Paradox under these terms is not limited to opposites but the process of infinite gradation that effectively eliminates change at a more central level as gradation is a constant function resulting in a static form by nature of being unchanging within a given context. An example of this would be human reproduction, generations may pass in innumberable variation and yet regardless of reproductive changes a human being still occurs across the expanse of time and space.
We experience by occurence, with experience being an occurence, and yet occurence reflects an inherent absurdity in purely an unjustified existence that is the act of justification itself for to exist is to justify by means of relations that are meta existences to what exists. Existence is justification by nature of its very occurence for justification is justified by occuring, thus leaving occurence as justification.
××××××××
Paradox becomes a rational aspect of experience given the simple distinction of connection and seperation it provides. To see a rational circle is to see a paradox of the space within and without the circle simultaneously connected and seperated by the circle itself where the rational form of the circle is the paradox itself. The basic law of identity follows this same paradigm as A=A leaves A defined by recursion and yet the nature of "=" connecting A to A by nature of self similarity while dually showing two distinct A that are not similar by nature of each being distinct. "Equality" is the limit by which connection through unifying similarity and seperation through separating distinctions.
Rational foundations of experience thus are the paradox, as both the beginning and end to things given a beginning and end are limits which provide distinction, where paradox observes reason as a justified distinction grounded in a justification that either lacks further justification or requires an indefinite regress to do so thus leaving a groundless infinity of potential and actual phenomena where spontaneity of occurence is the final say as to what is coherent and what is not as a before and after is made evident to some degree.
Spontaneity is the foundation by nature as reality just appears by virtue of unnecessary justification where justification occurs by occurence and yet is ungrounded by the mere effects of spontaneously induced change that leaves foundations as merely unnecessary, by virtue of inevitable looping regresses of cause, and yet it so nonetheless thus nullifying necessity as the sole justification for phenomena to occur.
In regards to seeking foundations occurence gives the impression of a subtle and deep, yet simple and obvious, approach to knowledge that both contains and moves beyond itself by virtue of "just being" as the change that relagates phenomena to being distinct is not only strictly movement but simultaneously leaves any notion of stability as merely an observation of different rates of change that enable the experience of a phenomena to occur, with this phenomena being an occurence and the experience of it an occurrence as well leaving change as not being an external experience but dually an internal one. In simpler terms a tree is merely a different rate of change from a field, thus leaving all distinctions as fundamentally being ratios in the conceptual sense where the ratio is the distinction of embodied connection and seperation which makes occurence synonymous to paradox. This nature of ratios of change, by virtue of being distinctions, leaving a process that is fundamentally static in nature given the process does not change: connection and seperation as inverse forms of unity. The foundations of what constitutes reason, ie conceptualized ratios of the various sorts, is akin to a sense of division and connection resulting in a holistic cycle in one respect and progressive change in another thus while occurence is dynamic the perpetual occurence of occurence is effectively static thus resulting in a deeper more nuanced paradox within the center of existence.
This progressive cycle of rationalizing occurence, as mentioned in the aforementioned 'occurence through occurence as occurence', necessitates an empty center within a symbolic revolving wheel of appearance where potentiality is the symbolic spoke of the symbolic wheel of the actual. The change of phenomena is merely the expansion and contraction of a cycle much in the same manner that a seed results in a tree and a tree results in a seed.
The occurence of nothing is the unmovable ever present potentiality which allows the transformative change of things to occur in the respect that the negation of a boundary through the act of change is an act of completion in achieving perfect unity, as perfect nothingness, while the appearance of a boundary is the paradoxical absence of absence, a pure nothingness where there is not even nothing as nothing is but a contrast to opposing being thus paradoxical on its own terms. Nothingness thus becomes the everpresent absolute by nature of being underlying potentiality which allows actualization to occur thus leaving an absolute unmoving cause as potentiality itself that is non linear by nature of an inherent universal groundlessness everpresent to all things actualizing. Potentiality is an absence of actuality thus is not a thing thus resulting in it effectively being an unchanging absolute nothing, an unmoved mover by virtue of spontaneous occurence of the actual and is subsequent occurence of its dissolution.
Occurence as nothing, or potentiality as the absence of actuality, takes on the role of pure negation thus negating said negation into a positive while dually it is a positive of positives leaving a negation of some degree of one positive relative to a greater or lesser one. In simpler terms to negate negation results in a positive and the positive of a positive leaves the negation of another positive. The paradox of occurence results in meta paradoxes and vice versa.
The transformative nature of occurence, as distinction alternating in and out of appearing, or rather giving impression upon that which is impressionable, requires an inherent cyclical nature grounded in the "phasing in and out phenomena" thus leaving the foundational form of occurence being, in symbolic terms, a sphere without circumferance with infinite centerpoints as each occurence through occurence is a cycle through a cycle, while dually the occurence being linearistic progression in all potential manners in a non-linear branching as the process of "phasing in" and "phasing out" progresses under the simple nature of the differences between eachother respectively as each effectively supersede eachother within a given context or in simpler terms "phasing in" and "phasing out" as meta-processes both progress towards eachother.
A deeper awareness of occurence results in it being, in symbolic terminology if not literal in some respects, akin to a corner less square where infinite squares within and without eachother observes only squares effectively being nothing. Occurence is it's own foundationless foundation justified purely through "just being" or it's "just is-ness" where potentiality as an unmoved mover exerts continual expansion and contraction of distinctions from and into nothingness as that which is complete is that which ceases to be given no change can further occur.
The foundational aspect of occurence results in a simple and subtle paradigm of interpreting reality where in depth truth, within the context of philosophy, is less about pursuit of truth and more of an awareness of the obvious where a phenomenon is taken for what it is: a transient appearance justified by virtue of occuring with justification being reduced to a mere occurence, a paradoxical appearance evidence by contrast that allows for said distinction of it.
Absolute truth under this terms is fundamentally the form and function of paradox, given connection and seperation as the fundamental unchanging distinction of nothingness given on their own terms when observed purely, where relativistic truth is the necessary contrast to the absolute that gives it a metaphorical 'building' in which to exist by allowing one ratio of change to provide the context for another in a perpetually expanding and contracting cycle. Absolute nature is within a given context through perpetual context, relativistic nature is merely partially observed absolutes where different angles imply a change which is non-existent.
However if one is to claim the notion of pure paradox to reality then no paradox occurs as paradox takes on a rational and sensical notion of being and yet paradox must just be for any sense to occur from this observation. In simpler terms, if all is paradoxical then there is no paradox as this conceptualization eliminates absurdity in place of the sensicality of the concept but this sensicality must admit to absurdity if absurdity is to be observed.
In simpler terms "things just are" and investigation into this nature "just is".
Reality is merely the occurence of distinctions, by distinction relative forms exist and by relationship change where one change relative to another change results in what is static being merely a slower rate of change. By the occurence of distinctions the distinction of occurence occurs and thus distinction points to an inherent cyclical nature as the process of experience.
There is only occurence. Thoughts, emotions, sensations, physical and abstract things are occurences. Existence is an occurence. All is an occurence. What one experiences as consciousness is an occurence with subjectivity and objectivity being rooted in occurence.
The basic assertion of "I think therefore I am" is rooted in the occurence of thought as a sense of self but may be broadened to a deeper more holistic statement of "occurence through occurence as occurence just is" where all aspects of experience are rooted in occurence.
If all is occurence and the reduction of all to a singular phenonemonon is an occurence, thus necessitating occurence is recursive alternation of occurence through itself as meta occurences of and within further occurences, where occurence is simultaneously transitional of one occurence to another as an occurence, this necessitates occurence as a universal law of existence that is self evident, by nature of all things being reduced to occurences, for self evidence is an occurence and nothing can be reduced to anything more foundational and universal than the absolute nature of occurence, with this absolute nature of occurence being that occurence is ever present, with any definition of occurence also being an occurence.
The recursive nature of occurence necessitates occurence as cyclically self maintaining while linearly progressively changing as it alternates through change thus necessitating a spiral of occurences that spontaneously occurs and dissolves.
Occurence is recursive and alternating by nature thus necessitating the foundations of experience following this same nature as experience is an occurence.
The deepest occurence is the symbol for the symbol acts as the empirical and abstract means of transforming awareness and awareness determines how reality is influenced or manifested. Symbols manifest fully as language, literally and metaphorically, as a symbolic directs to that which is beyond itself.
The occurence of language and symbols embodies the form of an expanding and contracting cycle of a self referencing variation of definitions, an intuitive circlular and linear duality that creates spiral of occurences which spontaneously occurs as a point of awareness. Simply follow definitions in a dictionary to see this.
In other terms the occurence of language, as the grounding of consciousness through the literal and metaphorical nature of relative symbols, has a fourfold intuitive geometric processive nature, which occurs, thus reflecting occurence itself:
Cyclical maintenance (one definition leads to another then the new definition leads back)
Linear progression (one definition leads to another then another so on and so forth)
Spiraling transitioning (expanding and contracting variations of self reference in definitions
Point of spontaneity (the word and it's meaning just occurs)
This quadratic set of forms also determine how we process experience at the meta level of language, where the nature of experience being grounded in symbols necessitates the form and function of experience and language manifestation as fundamentally being interwoven.
One experience goes to another and the new experience cycles back to the old.
One experience leads to another than another than another linearly.
One experience is reinterpreted by another experience and a new experience occurs through a spiral.
One experience just spontaneously appears as a point of awareness.
Experience thus has a symbolic nature, empirically and abstractly, through immersion with forms or images which direct beyond themselves. This occurence of symbolic experience contains meta processes that are meta-symbolic experiences in themselves and follows a geometric paradigm intuitively. Symbolic experience is manifests intuitively through a line, circle, spiral and point. This fourfold geometric process influences itself:
The cycle is the maintenance of the symbolic experience. The cycle is manifested through the spiral as expanding or contracting self reference, through the line as the beginning and end cycle as new beginnings and ends, through the point that composes it and allows the spontaneous occurence of the cycle through it.
The line is the progression of the symbolic experience. The line is manifested through the spiral and cycle by a simple progression of one point to another and the point as composing both the line and the spontaneous occurence of the line.
The spiral is the transformation of the symbolic experience. The spiral is manifested through the circle as variations of self referentiality and the line observing progressive variation and the point composing it and manifesting the spiral spontaneously.
The point is the spontaneous occurence of the symbolic experience. The point composes these forms and these forms spontaneously occur from it. The point is the utmost paradox as both one and many points and limit and limitlessness.
The nature of occurence reflects through the basic paradigms by which reality is conceptualized as the conceptualization itself. Occurence manifests through a fourfold metaphysics of:
Monism which contains dualism.
Dualism which relates as monism.
Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism where one results in the other.
Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three.
Occurence has four identity laws which are the form and function of occurence as the nature of occurence itself, to speak of these "laws" would effectively observe the nature of occurence as an occurence within and through it. The following laws are:
1. Occurence.
2. The relationship of occurences.
3. The relationship being an occurence.
4. Occurence as empty, hence transitional.
Occurence occurs as distinction. Distinction simultaneously connects and seperates thus the grounding of paradox is distinction as not only a paradox is a distinction but the act of distinction, by means of simulatneous connection and seperation, is a paradox. A simple example is a circle, the circle is the space between the interior and exterior space as space between space as space. This space, the circle, connects and seperates the interior and exterior spaces simultaneously thus is paradoxical.
The occurence of reality through distinction is paradox and paradox is transitional given the paradox acts as a means of synthesis in one respect, where opposites result in a new phenomena, while dually allowing the refining of opposing phenomena by nature of there distinct contrasting natures. Transition is both refinement, by manifesting contrasting clarity, and creation, by creating a new state by nature of interrelated opposites. This transitional nature of occurence necessitates an occurence to manifest and dissolve through occurence, as one experiences things appearing and disappearing, and this results in occurence as fundamentally paradoxical as manifestation and dissolution are occurences thus the occurence alternates through itself and as such is dualistic by nature with this dualistic nature of occurence being an occurence. Occurence exists through alternation and this alternation is an occurence.
This dualism in and out of itself results in a further dualism where this alternation manifests a relationship to other occurences where the occurence simultaneously connects and seperates other occurences. For example a chair appears. The chair as distinct is seperate from the table next to it and this seperation results in a contrasting relationship which allows the chair to occur by standing apart from the table. However this contrast makes the chair dependent upon standing apart from table and this dependency results in a connective relationship.
From another respect the chair as distinct from the table, and vice versa, connects the qualities within the chair and table as the chair and table respectively by them being separated.
The occurence of the chair is simultaneously connected and separated from the table. All occurence simultaneously connects and seperates this is paradoxical as the relationship of simultaneous connection and seperation allows the occurence to transition and change. The change in one occurence affects the state of another and this change is context creation as the occurence itself.
Thus occurence is inseperable from paradox.
Occurence is it's own context as well considering there is only occurence and as its own context it is fundamentally empty. An example of this can be the cornerless square paradox:
There is a square with infinite square within and outside of it. This boundless number of squares makes the square its own context while simultaeously leaving a blank void as there are infinite squares within and without thus no visible square. The perfect square is no square hence the square is merely a process of transition to another square and is empty as such, occurence is a process of transition and empty as such.
This is the nature of experience as experience is grounded in occurence.
All of this is an occurence.
Experience is inseperable from existence in many respects.
Existence occurs relative to another existence thus is the attribute that occurs by nature of a percieved relationship between phenomena that allow them to be. This percieved relationship exists as a percieved distinction.
Existence is an attribute within an attribute as an existing tree gives the relative leaf to it the quality of also existing with these existences merely being a conceptual distinction that occurse through a recursive fractal process of applied distinctions: this gains existence from that existence and that existence gains existence from another existence. To speak of existence, through existing things (such as words, symbols and concepts) is merely philosophical bootstrapping where the observation of attributes is inseperable from the form and function of existence.
Given the self-evidence of existence 'being', and the occurence of said self evidence 'being' as well with the relationship between the phenomena occuring and the self evidence of the phenenomena occuring with this relationship being an occurence, the self referential recursive quality of occurence through occurence as occurence by nature is a process of distinction that simultaneously connects and seperates the conceptualization of experience by nature of paradox and contradiction given the connection of occurences as an occurence creates an inherent unity of occurence while it dually allows for a degree of seperation from other occurences by nature of being distinct and localized.
Observing this in a simpler degree would be to see a tree as to connect experienced attributes such as bark and leaves into a cohesive localized reality while dually separating this very same tree from the field as a distinct localization of phenomena.
Unity under these terms, and in these respects, requires a paradoxical seperation from other occurences so as to achieve a sense of definition or distinction thus relegating distinction as synonymous to paradox by occurence.
Dually seperation allows for a percieved unity between and through occurences given the continual seperation of occurence results in a paradox of all things being connected by the quality of being distinct or localized considering that percieved differences between what occurs necessitates an underlying quality, ie being localized or a singleton, that connects amidst the seperation.
In these respects, to make a simple observation, both a tree and field are distinct from eachother and yet by their shared nature of contrast they are united under the quality of being distinct, of being localized. If everything is different than in specific respects that are the same by this underlying quality.
Occurence is simultaneously connection and seperation with connection and seperation being fundamental distinctions which occur. A paradox ensues by nature of these distinctions for to observe these would be to observe occurence through occurence as both seperate and united further resulting in a negation where neither distinction are seperate nor united. Occurence as connected to itself leaves it as self similar and effectively nothing due to lack of contrast. Occurence as seperate to itself leaves an absence of similarity to such an extent that it is effectively nothing due to lack of repeated distinctions.
The occurence of pure connection would be effectively nothing given no distinction would occur.
The occurence of pure seperation would be effectively nothing given no distinction would occur.
Pure connection and pure seperation effectively become one and the same in these regards as there is no distinction between each as both are effectively nothing. While opposites relativistically speaking they are same same by an absolute unchanging nature as purely connection and pure seperation are effectively nothing and there is nothing to change within nothingness for if there where it would not be nothingness.
Occurence as purely distinction leaves no contrast for distinction to be thus leaving it indistinct, nothing.
Occurence as purely nothing is a paradox as the absence thingness is a distinction of absence.
Occurence under these terms becomes its own absence of foundation and requires relation to achieve identity and yet if occurence is the irreducible reality of experience, and the unlimited apex of experience, than occurence by nature resorts to a fundamental reality of being synonymous in terminology and conceptualization to that of 'paradox' as occurence it's its own context given there are no foundations but itself and the context by which it exists are mere recursive fractal much in the same manner of a metaphor of infinite spheres gaining context through eachother even though there is only a sphere in different states.
The paradox exhibits grades however as irreducibility is merely infinite reducibility where the continual process of reduction leaves nothing effectively reduced as the act of reduction is unchanged, dually an unlimited apex reflects continual progression in such a manner that progression itself does not progress as the act of progression is unchanging. Paradox under these terms is not limited to opposites but the process of infinite gradation that effectively eliminates change at a more central level as gradation is a constant function resulting in a static form by nature of being unchanging within a given context. An example of this would be human reproduction, generations may pass in innumberable variation and yet regardless of reproductive changes a human being still occurs across the expanse of time and space.
We experience by occurence, with experience being an occurence, and yet occurence reflects an inherent absurdity in purely an unjustified existence that is the act of justification itself for to exist is to justify by means of relations that are meta existences to what exists. Existence is justification by nature of its very occurence for justification is justified by occuring, thus leaving occurence as justification.
××××××××
Paradox becomes a rational aspect of experience given the simple distinction of connection and seperation it provides. To see a rational circle is to see a paradox of the space within and without the circle simultaneously connected and seperated by the circle itself where the rational form of the circle is the paradox itself. The basic law of identity follows this same paradigm as A=A leaves A defined by recursion and yet the nature of "=" connecting A to A by nature of self similarity while dually showing two distinct A that are not similar by nature of each being distinct. "Equality" is the limit by which connection through unifying similarity and seperation through separating distinctions.
Rational foundations of experience thus are the paradox, as both the beginning and end to things given a beginning and end are limits which provide distinction, where paradox observes reason as a justified distinction grounded in a justification that either lacks further justification or requires an indefinite regress to do so thus leaving a groundless infinity of potential and actual phenomena where spontaneity of occurence is the final say as to what is coherent and what is not as a before and after is made evident to some degree.
Spontaneity is the foundation by nature as reality just appears by virtue of unnecessary justification where justification occurs by occurence and yet is ungrounded by the mere effects of spontaneously induced change that leaves foundations as merely unnecessary, by virtue of inevitable looping regresses of cause, and yet it so nonetheless thus nullifying necessity as the sole justification for phenomena to occur.
In regards to seeking foundations occurence gives the impression of a subtle and deep, yet simple and obvious, approach to knowledge that both contains and moves beyond itself by virtue of "just being" as the change that relagates phenomena to being distinct is not only strictly movement but simultaneously leaves any notion of stability as merely an observation of different rates of change that enable the experience of a phenomena to occur, with this phenomena being an occurence and the experience of it an occurrence as well leaving change as not being an external experience but dually an internal one. In simpler terms a tree is merely a different rate of change from a field, thus leaving all distinctions as fundamentally being ratios in the conceptual sense where the ratio is the distinction of embodied connection and seperation which makes occurence synonymous to paradox. This nature of ratios of change, by virtue of being distinctions, leaving a process that is fundamentally static in nature given the process does not change: connection and seperation as inverse forms of unity. The foundations of what constitutes reason, ie conceptualized ratios of the various sorts, is akin to a sense of division and connection resulting in a holistic cycle in one respect and progressive change in another thus while occurence is dynamic the perpetual occurence of occurence is effectively static thus resulting in a deeper more nuanced paradox within the center of existence.
This progressive cycle of rationalizing occurence, as mentioned in the aforementioned 'occurence through occurence as occurence', necessitates an empty center within a symbolic revolving wheel of appearance where potentiality is the symbolic spoke of the symbolic wheel of the actual. The change of phenomena is merely the expansion and contraction of a cycle much in the same manner that a seed results in a tree and a tree results in a seed.
The occurence of nothing is the unmovable ever present potentiality which allows the transformative change of things to occur in the respect that the negation of a boundary through the act of change is an act of completion in achieving perfect unity, as perfect nothingness, while the appearance of a boundary is the paradoxical absence of absence, a pure nothingness where there is not even nothing as nothing is but a contrast to opposing being thus paradoxical on its own terms. Nothingness thus becomes the everpresent absolute by nature of being underlying potentiality which allows actualization to occur thus leaving an absolute unmoving cause as potentiality itself that is non linear by nature of an inherent universal groundlessness everpresent to all things actualizing. Potentiality is an absence of actuality thus is not a thing thus resulting in it effectively being an unchanging absolute nothing, an unmoved mover by virtue of spontaneous occurence of the actual and is subsequent occurence of its dissolution.
Occurence as nothing, or potentiality as the absence of actuality, takes on the role of pure negation thus negating said negation into a positive while dually it is a positive of positives leaving a negation of some degree of one positive relative to a greater or lesser one. In simpler terms to negate negation results in a positive and the positive of a positive leaves the negation of another positive. The paradox of occurence results in meta paradoxes and vice versa.
The transformative nature of occurence, as distinction alternating in and out of appearing, or rather giving impression upon that which is impressionable, requires an inherent cyclical nature grounded in the "phasing in and out phenomena" thus leaving the foundational form of occurence being, in symbolic terms, a sphere without circumferance with infinite centerpoints as each occurence through occurence is a cycle through a cycle, while dually the occurence being linearistic progression in all potential manners in a non-linear branching as the process of "phasing in" and "phasing out" progresses under the simple nature of the differences between eachother respectively as each effectively supersede eachother within a given context or in simpler terms "phasing in" and "phasing out" as meta-processes both progress towards eachother.
A deeper awareness of occurence results in it being, in symbolic terminology if not literal in some respects, akin to a corner less square where infinite squares within and without eachother observes only squares effectively being nothing. Occurence is it's own foundationless foundation justified purely through "just being" or it's "just is-ness" where potentiality as an unmoved mover exerts continual expansion and contraction of distinctions from and into nothingness as that which is complete is that which ceases to be given no change can further occur.
The foundational aspect of occurence results in a simple and subtle paradigm of interpreting reality where in depth truth, within the context of philosophy, is less about pursuit of truth and more of an awareness of the obvious where a phenomenon is taken for what it is: a transient appearance justified by virtue of occuring with justification being reduced to a mere occurence, a paradoxical appearance evidence by contrast that allows for said distinction of it.
Absolute truth under this terms is fundamentally the form and function of paradox, given connection and seperation as the fundamental unchanging distinction of nothingness given on their own terms when observed purely, where relativistic truth is the necessary contrast to the absolute that gives it a metaphorical 'building' in which to exist by allowing one ratio of change to provide the context for another in a perpetually expanding and contracting cycle. Absolute nature is within a given context through perpetual context, relativistic nature is merely partially observed absolutes where different angles imply a change which is non-existent.
However if one is to claim the notion of pure paradox to reality then no paradox occurs as paradox takes on a rational and sensical notion of being and yet paradox must just be for any sense to occur from this observation. In simpler terms, if all is paradoxical then there is no paradox as this conceptualization eliminates absurdity in place of the sensicality of the concept but this sensicality must admit to absurdity if absurdity is to be observed.
In simpler terms "things just are" and investigation into this nature "just is".
Reality is merely the occurence of distinctions, by distinction relative forms exist and by relationship change where one change relative to another change results in what is static being merely a slower rate of change. By the occurence of distinctions the distinction of occurence occurs and thus distinction points to an inherent cyclical nature as the process of experience.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Jul 16, 2025 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Existence occurs relative to another existence thus is the attribute that occurs by nature of a percieved relationship between phenomena that allow them to be.
Existence is an attribute within an attribute as an existing tree gives the relative leaf to it the quality of also existing with these existences merely being a conceptual distinction that occurs through a recursive fractal process of applied distinctions: this gains existence from that existence and that existence gains existence from another existence. To speak of existence, through existing things (such as words, symbols and concepts) is merely philosophical bootstrapping where the observation of attributes is inseperable from the form and function of existence.
Dually "existence" is an empty term, as it applies to all things and has no contrast and yet the term is a distinction resulting in a paradox where this empty term translates to a context that stands apart from itself. In other words, all things exist and yet each thing is a distinct existence that is absent of some other distinction of existence another thing has thus resulting in a paradox where existence is absent of meaning, it is an absence, and yet A true absence is absence of absence thus leading to a clear distinction.
In pure contradiction anything arises and what is possible occurs with this expansive infinite possibility being effectively nothing until a distinction contracts it into something sensible.
The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur. The nature of distinction as both the limits which are a space and the limits that creates a space results in the nature of space not being limited to strictly empirical or abstract natures but effective is the means by which both exists.
A Class within a class makes distinct classes that are inherently seperate by nature of distinction thus no class is inherently the same and any appearance of being interwoven is contradicted by individual locality where one class and another are distinct as one class and another.
Example: B exists in A. B is distinct from A as a part of A that is not truly A as A contains more than B. As B is not A, considering A contains more than B thus B is deficient of qualities that make A what it is, B is the absence of A and as such results in a paradoxical seperation from A even though B is a part of A.
There is another paradox about distinction that addresses this from another angle:
1. There is a circle.
2. There is space inside the circle and space outside the circle.
3. The circle divides the interior space from the exterior space as a space between these spaces.
4. Space divides space with this division being space.
5. The singularity of space contradicts itself.
Occurence occurs through another occurence as occurence results in an inherent recursive structure reflected through the nature of forms premised in geometry: as a line segment occurs through another line segment as a line segment given a line segment is both a part of and contains line segments thus resulting in an ever present line segment regardless of how the line segment is viewed with this ever present line segment revealing an inherent recursive nature to the nature of experience.
This occurence is simultaneously premised in non-geometric forms: a tree occurs through another tree where the common form is a tree within and through the seperate trees as the relationship of trees thus relagating form as both a static occurence, the individual trees, and form as an observation of relationships between thing which unites them, ie the commonality amidst these trees as "tree", thus revealing a layer of recursion where a form is merely repeatable qualities across forms that allow them to occur as a relational cycle.
Occurence is the act of form itself for with the recursive nature of form, as mentioned above, the form takes on a dual static nature of what is repeated, therefore giving a percievable structure, and the act of repetition itself, therefore giving a transitional quality, thus revealing occurence is an inherent order of transformation where a form is repeated in infinite variation that justifies its singularity (line segment within and without a line segment as a perpetual line segment, or a tree occurs through other trees as a cyclically occurring tree) as a specific thing that occurs across the vastness of experience in a manner where a past or future appearance is not only in the present but results in an interwoven process of looping between past, present and future where temporality and finiteness merely becomes the act of distinction within the form and function of the quality of transformation.
In these respects, and under these terms, the foundational nature of occurence within reality, being the presence of experience, as reality necessitates transformation as a foundational law where change gives the impression of absolute law by the process of recursion that enable cyclical maintenence of percievable distinctions while embodying a linear quality to these very same distinctions by process of progressive variation within a given context.
The foundational term of "occurence", in many respects, becomes synonymous to the term "transformation" thus further relegating, or at least implying, that reality is a process of negation where the justification of a distinction's occurence is the negation of both a prior or potential occurence by justification of its current existence. The spontaneity of these distinctions implies occurence ex nihilio where any percievable gap within two distinct states is merely a process of dissolution of one into the other where the percievable negation of one distinction thing is the absence by which the new distinction arises. In these respects the occurence of reality, as experience, is a process by which things occur without grounds as a transitory cycle of appearances that individually lack any percievable substance not only due to the necessity of there relationship but dually by nature of the spontaneity of change or rather it's unpredictability.
Given the nature of experience is an intertwined condition within existence and experiences is guided and moderated by morality the nature of occurence, in both form an foundation necessitates morality as transformation towards value given morality is how value is achieved.
If there is a moral code than there are immoral actions that allow moral actions to be distinct as moral actions....thus morality requires immorality.
If there is no morality than any action goes as anything is justified...thus immorality justifies morality.
However, on another note, if anything is justified than justification ceases to have meaning, and hence a perceivable existence as no meaning is no transformation and no transformation is no being, thus leaving no sense of justification for anything.
If nothing is justifiable than morality can occur for no real reason and yet require justification thus making it a process of contradiction than manifests the same immorality that makes morality as distinct.
This interplay between moral and immoral values and actions results in less of a strict dichotomy oriented approach to how to exist and rather a process of transformation where morality is a process of change towards a given value or the act of valuing.
The transformation nature of morality by and through value reflects a deeper degree of its occurence within consciousness transformation.
There is a practical meditative process that I have discovered over time with the process of trial and error. For all intents and purposes it can be called "Symbolic Dissolution Therapy". This meditative process does not necessarily result in a perfect peace but I have found it metaphorically 'dulls the sharp blade of life'.
The process goes as follows.
1. Pay attention to the transient nature of experience and observe its transient qualities.
2. Repeat a simple mantra interiorly while doing so that embodies this nature ("Let go", "This is passing", "This is being sacrificed", etc."
3. Let the experiences pass until one reaches a wall where a specific experience (a deep attachment or aversion) does not seem to pass.
4. Pay attention to this experience now and gain a deeper insight into its nature. Use this experience as a direction to emerge yourself in reality by facing it calmly. If one suffers from an absence of direction in life, facing this experience will give the opportunity for a deeper more profound sense of meaning.
5. This experience can be faced either in a life situation that occurs or address it by interacting with it through the imagination if it is a past or future conception. This experience is merely a symbol of the self. There is no time limit to this step, it can last a minute or for several years.
6. The eventual dissolution of this experience removes a symbolic layer of the self allowing one to gain a deeper degree of personal freedom by allowing one to more fluidly transition through life.
7. Continue this process, for life is a process of letting go of desires and cultivating an internal stillness and clarity. Find meaning by reducing layers of yourself.
Sometimes achieving the desire completes it.
Sometimes seeing its nature completes it.
Sometimes not being able to acquire it over a long period of time completes it as one is to exhausted to be driven by it.
Success or tragedy may also end it as this completes it.
There are a myriad of ways to eliminate desires, by completing them, but all of this is grounded in the act of paying attention to it. Completion of a desire is its dissolution for when a thing is complete it no longer progresses and ceases to be.
Desires are merely symbols of the self that direct our thoughts, feelings, words and deeds. They are prevalent when a deep or shallow imbalance occurs. The dissolution of this symbolic layer allows balance to be restored.
Given consciousness occurs through change it has a temporal nature in many respects.
Time as the occurence of expanding and contracting space is the dimension of space expanding or contracting relative to another space. A second hand on clock moving to another point over is the hand repeating in a new space where this expansion of space, by the repetition, is time. Dually it can be view as contraction as well as the new position is a contraction of space, a localization or distinction of it, relative to potential space.
Now if one looks at the nature of expansion and contraction it is repetition of distinctions into inverse forms of a singular where contraction into a single point is a minute singularity, that on its own terms is limitless, and expansion into a broad singularity, that on its terms is limitless. Either means, expansion or contraction, is a change towards a potential singularity where boundaries are negated by an act of completion by which a deficit of change occurs. The result is indistinct space by which distinctions of space come forth and return as space within space thus leaving the observable nature of existence being fundamentally a paradox.
Time is the dimension of space expanding or contracting relative to another space. A second hand on clock moving to another point over is the hand repeating in a new space where this expansion of space, by the repetition, is time. Dually it can be view as contraction as well as the new position is a contraction of space, a localization or distinction of it, relative to potential space.
The distinctions by which change occurs gives rise to self evidence for by distinction evidence is and within this nature of evidence as distinctions occurs a revelation that the occurence of self-evidence is image.
Given self evidence is the observation of the occurence of a conceptualization that appears strictly for what it is as an occurence, and there are innumerable conceptualizations that occur, then there are innumerable axioms resulting in an axiom merely being an appearance of a distinction within the mind where any set of axioms can be derived as a pivotal foundational point of interpreting experience necessitating the relationships of these axioms are axioms within axioms as an axiom.
Axioms are merely cyclically progressive self justifications that maintain there coherency by uncountable relations that give rise to an appearance of coherency induced clarity reflecting an impression of order further relegating what is percieved as rational being simply an impressionable experience where things are justified by nature of being distinct.
Under these terms truth value becomes a process of distinction justified by appearance where appearance is the foundational essence of what is deemed true further cycling to a self prescribed paradox given any distinct essence is relegated to mere appearance by virtue of its occurence and transient interconnected nature.
Self evidence as mere image sets the foundation to a paradox within the very reason grounded in what is axiomatic: The Paradox of a Universal Logical Framework
An all encompassing system of logic, that underlies all experience of existence as existence itself, would be so fundamental and foundational to all things that it's general use would lead to such a high degree of subtlety as to be indistinct and meaningless, other than the system building upon itself through itself in infinite recursion, given that it's foundations could not be grasped without using the very same foundations to grasp it, this ending in a perpetual cycle.
Any framework by which experience is interpreted is a matter of the universe as an interpretation of experience where the universe is merely a mean of expressing the limits of experience.
The universe can be created once and infinitely. An example is a line segment. Upon first inspection there is only it. Upon further inspection it composed of infinite fractal line segments that appear as individual line segments.
So in perceiving a line segment one may see a part of a large line segment and many small line segments but regardless of which one is seen there is still only a line segment no matter how one views it.
The line segment both contains and it a part of line segments as an infinite singular occurence given now matter how one percieves it there is only a line segment.
Now the question of "universe", as in the meaning of the word. It is inseperable from experience as the universe is merely our perception of things with the limits of this experience being the boundaries that allow for a percievable sense of order for without limits there is no order and without order being ceases as it becomes impercievable. Chaos is paradoxical in this regards as the absence of percievable order is bound by the repeatable qualities of asymmetry and seperation thus resulting in an inherent meta structure within it.
The ultimate experience in simplicity by which all experience occurs is reduced to a singular essence occurs fundamentally, both literally and intuitively as the point.
If a point is composed of infinite points, and the infinite continuum of points is a dimension, this necessitates a paradox as a single point is both distinct as measurable and indistinct as immeasurable, finite as specific and infinite as a continuum, where a point becomes its own self-referential context that makes it simultaneously dualistic given its distinct finiteness and indistinct infinite nature occur through eachother thus resulting in a form of variating circularity that is fundamental to the act of distinction and underlines the paradoxical nature of geometric self evident truths.
The ultimate paradox of experience is the single spatial point as a symbol, as all experience is grounded in symbolism from which meaning is derived, considering it is both one and many points, distinct and indistinct, finite and infinite, and the means through which all forms occur and dissolve with these forms being composed of the point from which they occur and dissolve.
Given the paradoxical nature of the foundational element by which knowledge is made distinct, there is a paradox of understanding.
If a line segment is composed of infinite line segments and exists with infinite line segment, the line segment is a paradox of paradoxes as finite infinity and infinitely finite which can be symbolic of the process of distinction used within the language game of conscious dialogue, internally and externally, given the simple line segment is how we connect and separate experiences with this connection and separation being an experience itself that contains within its own distinction meta-distinctions.
Existence is an attribute within an attribute as an existing tree gives the relative leaf to it the quality of also existing with these existences merely being a conceptual distinction that occurs through a recursive fractal process of applied distinctions: this gains existence from that existence and that existence gains existence from another existence. To speak of existence, through existing things (such as words, symbols and concepts) is merely philosophical bootstrapping where the observation of attributes is inseperable from the form and function of existence.
Dually "existence" is an empty term, as it applies to all things and has no contrast and yet the term is a distinction resulting in a paradox where this empty term translates to a context that stands apart from itself. In other words, all things exist and yet each thing is a distinct existence that is absent of some other distinction of existence another thing has thus resulting in a paradox where existence is absent of meaning, it is an absence, and yet A true absence is absence of absence thus leading to a clear distinction.
In pure contradiction anything arises and what is possible occurs with this expansive infinite possibility being effectively nothing until a distinction contracts it into something sensible.
The purest occurrence is space as nothing can be added or taken from it without the thing being composed of the very same nature of space it exists within and it is by and through which things occur. The nature of distinction as both the limits which are a space and the limits that creates a space results in the nature of space not being limited to strictly empirical or abstract natures but effective is the means by which both exists.
A Class within a class makes distinct classes that are inherently seperate by nature of distinction thus no class is inherently the same and any appearance of being interwoven is contradicted by individual locality where one class and another are distinct as one class and another.
Example: B exists in A. B is distinct from A as a part of A that is not truly A as A contains more than B. As B is not A, considering A contains more than B thus B is deficient of qualities that make A what it is, B is the absence of A and as such results in a paradoxical seperation from A even though B is a part of A.
There is another paradox about distinction that addresses this from another angle:
1. There is a circle.
2. There is space inside the circle and space outside the circle.
3. The circle divides the interior space from the exterior space as a space between these spaces.
4. Space divides space with this division being space.
5. The singularity of space contradicts itself.
Occurence occurs through another occurence as occurence results in an inherent recursive structure reflected through the nature of forms premised in geometry: as a line segment occurs through another line segment as a line segment given a line segment is both a part of and contains line segments thus resulting in an ever present line segment regardless of how the line segment is viewed with this ever present line segment revealing an inherent recursive nature to the nature of experience.
This occurence is simultaneously premised in non-geometric forms: a tree occurs through another tree where the common form is a tree within and through the seperate trees as the relationship of trees thus relagating form as both a static occurence, the individual trees, and form as an observation of relationships between thing which unites them, ie the commonality amidst these trees as "tree", thus revealing a layer of recursion where a form is merely repeatable qualities across forms that allow them to occur as a relational cycle.
Occurence is the act of form itself for with the recursive nature of form, as mentioned above, the form takes on a dual static nature of what is repeated, therefore giving a percievable structure, and the act of repetition itself, therefore giving a transitional quality, thus revealing occurence is an inherent order of transformation where a form is repeated in infinite variation that justifies its singularity (line segment within and without a line segment as a perpetual line segment, or a tree occurs through other trees as a cyclically occurring tree) as a specific thing that occurs across the vastness of experience in a manner where a past or future appearance is not only in the present but results in an interwoven process of looping between past, present and future where temporality and finiteness merely becomes the act of distinction within the form and function of the quality of transformation.
In these respects, and under these terms, the foundational nature of occurence within reality, being the presence of experience, as reality necessitates transformation as a foundational law where change gives the impression of absolute law by the process of recursion that enable cyclical maintenence of percievable distinctions while embodying a linear quality to these very same distinctions by process of progressive variation within a given context.
The foundational term of "occurence", in many respects, becomes synonymous to the term "transformation" thus further relegating, or at least implying, that reality is a process of negation where the justification of a distinction's occurence is the negation of both a prior or potential occurence by justification of its current existence. The spontaneity of these distinctions implies occurence ex nihilio where any percievable gap within two distinct states is merely a process of dissolution of one into the other where the percievable negation of one distinction thing is the absence by which the new distinction arises. In these respects the occurence of reality, as experience, is a process by which things occur without grounds as a transitory cycle of appearances that individually lack any percievable substance not only due to the necessity of there relationship but dually by nature of the spontaneity of change or rather it's unpredictability.
Given the nature of experience is an intertwined condition within existence and experiences is guided and moderated by morality the nature of occurence, in both form an foundation necessitates morality as transformation towards value given morality is how value is achieved.
If there is a moral code than there are immoral actions that allow moral actions to be distinct as moral actions....thus morality requires immorality.
If there is no morality than any action goes as anything is justified...thus immorality justifies morality.
However, on another note, if anything is justified than justification ceases to have meaning, and hence a perceivable existence as no meaning is no transformation and no transformation is no being, thus leaving no sense of justification for anything.
If nothing is justifiable than morality can occur for no real reason and yet require justification thus making it a process of contradiction than manifests the same immorality that makes morality as distinct.
This interplay between moral and immoral values and actions results in less of a strict dichotomy oriented approach to how to exist and rather a process of transformation where morality is a process of change towards a given value or the act of valuing.
The transformation nature of morality by and through value reflects a deeper degree of its occurence within consciousness transformation.
There is a practical meditative process that I have discovered over time with the process of trial and error. For all intents and purposes it can be called "Symbolic Dissolution Therapy". This meditative process does not necessarily result in a perfect peace but I have found it metaphorically 'dulls the sharp blade of life'.
The process goes as follows.
1. Pay attention to the transient nature of experience and observe its transient qualities.
2. Repeat a simple mantra interiorly while doing so that embodies this nature ("Let go", "This is passing", "This is being sacrificed", etc."
3. Let the experiences pass until one reaches a wall where a specific experience (a deep attachment or aversion) does not seem to pass.
4. Pay attention to this experience now and gain a deeper insight into its nature. Use this experience as a direction to emerge yourself in reality by facing it calmly. If one suffers from an absence of direction in life, facing this experience will give the opportunity for a deeper more profound sense of meaning.
5. This experience can be faced either in a life situation that occurs or address it by interacting with it through the imagination if it is a past or future conception. This experience is merely a symbol of the self. There is no time limit to this step, it can last a minute or for several years.
6. The eventual dissolution of this experience removes a symbolic layer of the self allowing one to gain a deeper degree of personal freedom by allowing one to more fluidly transition through life.
7. Continue this process, for life is a process of letting go of desires and cultivating an internal stillness and clarity. Find meaning by reducing layers of yourself.
Sometimes achieving the desire completes it.
Sometimes seeing its nature completes it.
Sometimes not being able to acquire it over a long period of time completes it as one is to exhausted to be driven by it.
Success or tragedy may also end it as this completes it.
There are a myriad of ways to eliminate desires, by completing them, but all of this is grounded in the act of paying attention to it. Completion of a desire is its dissolution for when a thing is complete it no longer progresses and ceases to be.
Desires are merely symbols of the self that direct our thoughts, feelings, words and deeds. They are prevalent when a deep or shallow imbalance occurs. The dissolution of this symbolic layer allows balance to be restored.
Given consciousness occurs through change it has a temporal nature in many respects.
Time as the occurence of expanding and contracting space is the dimension of space expanding or contracting relative to another space. A second hand on clock moving to another point over is the hand repeating in a new space where this expansion of space, by the repetition, is time. Dually it can be view as contraction as well as the new position is a contraction of space, a localization or distinction of it, relative to potential space.
Now if one looks at the nature of expansion and contraction it is repetition of distinctions into inverse forms of a singular where contraction into a single point is a minute singularity, that on its own terms is limitless, and expansion into a broad singularity, that on its terms is limitless. Either means, expansion or contraction, is a change towards a potential singularity where boundaries are negated by an act of completion by which a deficit of change occurs. The result is indistinct space by which distinctions of space come forth and return as space within space thus leaving the observable nature of existence being fundamentally a paradox.
Time is the dimension of space expanding or contracting relative to another space. A second hand on clock moving to another point over is the hand repeating in a new space where this expansion of space, by the repetition, is time. Dually it can be view as contraction as well as the new position is a contraction of space, a localization or distinction of it, relative to potential space.
The distinctions by which change occurs gives rise to self evidence for by distinction evidence is and within this nature of evidence as distinctions occurs a revelation that the occurence of self-evidence is image.
Given self evidence is the observation of the occurence of a conceptualization that appears strictly for what it is as an occurence, and there are innumerable conceptualizations that occur, then there are innumerable axioms resulting in an axiom merely being an appearance of a distinction within the mind where any set of axioms can be derived as a pivotal foundational point of interpreting experience necessitating the relationships of these axioms are axioms within axioms as an axiom.
Axioms are merely cyclically progressive self justifications that maintain there coherency by uncountable relations that give rise to an appearance of coherency induced clarity reflecting an impression of order further relegating what is percieved as rational being simply an impressionable experience where things are justified by nature of being distinct.
Under these terms truth value becomes a process of distinction justified by appearance where appearance is the foundational essence of what is deemed true further cycling to a self prescribed paradox given any distinct essence is relegated to mere appearance by virtue of its occurence and transient interconnected nature.
Self evidence as mere image sets the foundation to a paradox within the very reason grounded in what is axiomatic: The Paradox of a Universal Logical Framework
An all encompassing system of logic, that underlies all experience of existence as existence itself, would be so fundamental and foundational to all things that it's general use would lead to such a high degree of subtlety as to be indistinct and meaningless, other than the system building upon itself through itself in infinite recursion, given that it's foundations could not be grasped without using the very same foundations to grasp it, this ending in a perpetual cycle.
Any framework by which experience is interpreted is a matter of the universe as an interpretation of experience where the universe is merely a mean of expressing the limits of experience.
The universe can be created once and infinitely. An example is a line segment. Upon first inspection there is only it. Upon further inspection it composed of infinite fractal line segments that appear as individual line segments.
So in perceiving a line segment one may see a part of a large line segment and many small line segments but regardless of which one is seen there is still only a line segment no matter how one views it.
The line segment both contains and it a part of line segments as an infinite singular occurence given now matter how one percieves it there is only a line segment.
Now the question of "universe", as in the meaning of the word. It is inseperable from experience as the universe is merely our perception of things with the limits of this experience being the boundaries that allow for a percievable sense of order for without limits there is no order and without order being ceases as it becomes impercievable. Chaos is paradoxical in this regards as the absence of percievable order is bound by the repeatable qualities of asymmetry and seperation thus resulting in an inherent meta structure within it.
The ultimate experience in simplicity by which all experience occurs is reduced to a singular essence occurs fundamentally, both literally and intuitively as the point.
If a point is composed of infinite points, and the infinite continuum of points is a dimension, this necessitates a paradox as a single point is both distinct as measurable and indistinct as immeasurable, finite as specific and infinite as a continuum, where a point becomes its own self-referential context that makes it simultaneously dualistic given its distinct finiteness and indistinct infinite nature occur through eachother thus resulting in a form of variating circularity that is fundamental to the act of distinction and underlines the paradoxical nature of geometric self evident truths.
The ultimate paradox of experience is the single spatial point as a symbol, as all experience is grounded in symbolism from which meaning is derived, considering it is both one and many points, distinct and indistinct, finite and infinite, and the means through which all forms occur and dissolve with these forms being composed of the point from which they occur and dissolve.
Given the paradoxical nature of the foundational element by which knowledge is made distinct, there is a paradox of understanding.
If a line segment is composed of infinite line segments and exists with infinite line segment, the line segment is a paradox of paradoxes as finite infinity and infinitely finite which can be symbolic of the process of distinction used within the language game of conscious dialogue, internally and externally, given the simple line segment is how we connect and separate experiences with this connection and separation being an experience itself that contains within its own distinction meta-distinctions.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
+++×××+
The occurence of time is the occurence of distinction, time is rhythmic change where rhythm is a repeated symmetrical space between distinctions and change is the occurence of one distinction relative to another.
It is the measurement of one change relative to another change where the focal point of change by which other changes are measured is the measurement of a distinction, then another distinction where the space between said distinctions is time. Proof is the hand moving on a clock. A hand is in one space, then another. The position is the hand repeating across space as a space itself. The repetition of new positions, as the hand which is a space in itself, requires a space between them. The manifestion of the space, ie the past position, relative to another, ie the previous position is time. Now the movement of the hand is one rhythmic change and it is used as the starting point of measurement by which another set of changes occurs, for example the number of repetitions of an exercise, a rhythmic change. Time is a set of changes by which other changes are observed.
Now to the specific nature of time:
Time is merely the space between distinctions as the new distinction being the central point of observation. Given the new distinction is without time, as the central point of now contains no change on its own, it contains change only when observed relative to past changes. These past changes are observed relative to what was once current, as comparison requires an observation of the past at the current time, thus relegating the once current time as a past event relative to another past event. An example would be the hand of a clock, the hand is always currently seen only where it is at through the senses, where it was at one point is a past event only observed in the mind as memory. The current position of the hand is only seen as change relative to the past thus as the focal point of the present the present hand contains no change without a comparison to the past hand, thus time becomes a relation of occurences. To compare it to the past would effectively observe the past as a current perception where one past occurence is observed relative to another. In these respects the past, by memory, becomes a current occurence as it is what is being percieved as reality for the current moment.
Time is thus a process of perception by nature of space within and between percieved occurences of distinctions as events. To observe change is to observe the space of events, where events are spatial by nature of containing and being within distinctions as a distinction itself (example a human form is a form like any other and forms are fundamentally space within limits and these limits are the spaces between the space within and without them), thus the space of time (a space) occurs through the space as the distinctions, thus resulting in time being a space between space as a meta space where the conclusion occurs that only space exists and time is merely a meta space that provides a foundation structure to things by being the manifestation of distinction with these distinctions being necessary for limits and limits necessary for perceivable structure.
Time is the relation of distinctions, with these distinctions being space by nature of being forms, with the relationship of these distinctions being a space as time a distinction by which further distinctions occur.
In other terms the occurence of a distinction is change for with the occurence of a distinction a previous distinction is dissolved so that what occurs is distinct by its very nature of being. Change is to create distinctions as a form occurs. One distinction relative to another necessitates a difference by nature of being distinct. This movement is relative, as a fixe point is observed and movement occurs around it. For example one can stay still and observe the distinction of the clouds occuring, one can move and see new distinctions of a supposed fixed thing occuring, or one can move and see both the distinctions of another thing occuring while the new distinction occuring as the thing moving as well. If a thing is not distinct it does not occur, for by distinction a thing exists. Without distinction there is nothing.
Now to cycle back an observe the notion of time as a space within space this space by which times exists by relationship of distinctions observes the distinction fundamentally being forms. Forms are purely space by nature of a simple boundary, or a limit, seperating spaces with this seperation being a space between spaces. Form, as a space between spaces, and time being the space between the space between these spaces, results in a paradoxical notion of existence where the repetition of spaces, as the repetition of distinctions, shows not only a recursive quality to existence but simultaneously an alternation of distinctions between existing and not existing.
Now given that time is recursive, and recursion results in order as by repetition that allows symmetry, order as previously stated, a form is an occurence or the manifestation of change. Thus a form is a localized event of time, and time is observed relative to other times in this respect but also in the respect that to observe the passing of time is to observe an event, a distinction, and the event is effectively a form in this regard. In simpler terms a form is an event, an event is change, and change is time thus forms are not only temporal events but effectively is localized time.
Time, given is necessity of comparison of past to present, is not only recursion where distinctions are repeated, but has a simultaneous dual nature of alternation of distinctions occuring in and out of perception thus observes space as recursive alternation as the act of perception itself where time is fundamentally a paradox: it is the space between spaces. that are spaces between spaces in one respect, while dually being alternation of existence and non existence as recursion where the alternation in and out of existence requires a space between the existences.
Given the current moment is empty in itself without comparison to other moments causality is an everpresent medium where any conception of past or future is merely an observation occuring in the present, by which they arise, thus resulting in the relationship of now being a fixed ever present cause, akin to an empty point when it is without comparison, where one present moment, cause, and another present moment, cause as an empty point, results in a causality that manifests as effects as the comparison of one now to another now, one cause compared to another, gives rise to a form as effect and further cause.
An example of this is a line. There is a 0d point, the absolute cause in one respect as nothing is unchanging by nature of the inability to change for there is nothing to change and the absolute cause in another respect as it is everpresent within a line composed of infinite 0d points. The 0d point is divided into another 0d point as the line itself. This is a paradox as the division of nothingness is pure form by degree of an absence of absence, the negation of negation, by further of inherent contradiction by tension in the respect that the line is the opposition of nothing, 0d point, by virtue of existence, the line. The line is a paradox by nature and the line is a foundational form in observation due to its simplicity. The same cause exists in two different places and the places exists as the negation of nothingness where the line is merely a space dividing space as a paradox in itself, the line in otherwords is the creation of positions. Not only is the cause both beginning an end but effectively results in the line as a loop, a cycle, by virtue of the repetition of the 0d point being a 0d point and the space between the 0d point being the form which comes from it (the line in this case). Form is purely paradox as evidenced by the line. Now in regards to time, it shares this same nature as the line due to its perceptual integrity being the same as it. The "now" is but an everpresent cause, by interpretation and comparison of past and future through it, while dually time is the distinction of one now to another, one cause to another and yet the cause is everpresent just like a 0d point is everpresent in a line, where time becomes the division of the now as the form of things themselves that exist in multiple "nows", given each form existed in a relative "now" when compared. Time is the comparison of multiple "now" thus reflects an everpresent causality where cause becomes effect by the paradoxical negation of itself, the opposition of nothing (which is absolute given nothing cannot change for there is nothing to change) as being. Under these terms existence as distinction is purely time and time is a paradox.
$$$
Paradox is fundamentally the act of transformation and transformation is empty in itself. The act of transformation is the the process of change where a distinction alternates in and out of reality. For something to occur, something must manifest and then dissolve, with this fundamental nature of manifestation and dissolution being a foundational isomorphism as the nature of occurence itself, the paradoxical nature of occurence is inseperable from it foundationally being isomorphic where this foundational isomorphism is the dualism of existence and non-existence which are fundamentally the same thing:
1. Existence has no comparison beyond itself allowing it to be distinct for if Existence had an existence beyond it it would not existence, thus existence cannot exist as there is no distinction that allows it to be. This is a paradox.
2. Non-existence is a distinction by nature of being an absence thus non-existence exists. This is a paradox.
The isomorphism of existence and non-existence is the foundational alternation that is occurence for occurence is the manifestation of change by nature of an event and this change is grounded in not only a paradoxical dualism but effectively an isomorphic nature as seeming opposites are effectively eachother not only by the prescribed paradoxes above but by nature of both having a contrasting relationship necessitating a dependency. To observed the basic dichotomy of existence and non-existence as a central foundation to any metaphysical dialogue would be reduced the foundations to being a pure isomorphism. This dichotomy of existence and non existence, being an occurence as the dichotomy, and occurences as existence and non-existence, reflects both occurencd as an occurence and non-occurence as an occurence by virtue of the inherent paradoxes within existence and non-existence.
Paradox is fundamentally the act of transformation and transformation is empty in itself. The act of transformation is the the process of change where a distinction alternates in and out of reality. For something to occur, something must manifest and then dissolve, with this fundamental nature of manifestation and dissolution being a foundational isomorphism as the nature of occurence itself, the paradoxical nature of occurence is inseperable from it foundationally being isomorphic where this foundational isomorphism is the dualism of existence and non-existence which are fundamentally the same thing:
1. Existence has no comparison beyond itself allowing it to be distinct for if Existence had an existence beyond it it would not existence, thus existence cannot exist as there is no distinction that allows it to be. This is a paradox.
2. Non-existence is a distinction by nature of being an absence thus non-existence exists. This is a paradox.
The isomorphism of existence and non-existence is the foundational alternation that is occurence for occurence is the manifestation of change by nature of an event and this change is grounded in not only a paradoxical dualism but effectively an isomorphic nature as seeming opposites are effectively eachother not only by the prescribed paradoxes above but by nature of both having a contrasting relationship necessitating a dependency. To observed the basic dichotomy of existence and non-existence as a central foundation to any metaphysical dialogue would be reduced the foundations to being a pure isomorphism. This dichotomy of existence and non existence, being an occurence as the dichotomy, and occurences as existence and non-existence, reflects both occurence as an occurence and non-occurence also as an occurence by virtue of the previously mentioned inherent paradoxes that are fundamental to existence and non-existence.
In these respects the occurence of distinction as an occurence necessitates that distinctions are fundamentally isomorphic in nature and any variation of a dualism is effectively an isomorphism and this isomorphism leads to a nature of gradation inherent within them. The gradation occurs as follows:
1. There is existence and non existence as a dualism.
2. There is both existence/non-existence and neither existence/nonexistence as a dualism.
3. These dualisms are a dualism relative to eachother.
4. These dualism are not a dualism relative to eachother.
5. Points 3 and 4 are a dualism relative to eachother.
6. Point 5 is not a dualism.
7. So on to infinitey.
8. Dualism creates further dualism thus resulting in dualism simultaneously resulting in gradation.
+++++
A paradox results within the isomorphic dualism of existence and non-existence as this foundational dualism, contained within all dualisms, necessitates a simple binary nature as resulting in infinite gradation where dualism leads to a non dualistic nature of infinite progression where each grade is effectively a dualism thus resulting in the fundamental conceptual nature of the dualism as existing simultaneously through gradation. The nature of infinite gradation through dualism is a synonymous way of wording that paradox results in infinite grades of transformation thus occurence as paradoxical can be structurally represented by the aforementioned gradation through dualism.
Now this dualism as gradation paradox can be reflected within the foundations of geometry:
1. There is a point.
(Law of Occurence 1: There is an occurence)
2. A second point occurs.
(Law of Occurence 2: There is an occurence relative to another occurence)
3. The opposite points in opposite spaces are still effectively a 0d point where the opposite spaces observe infinite points between them as infinite opposite positions.
(Law of Occurence 3: The relationship of occurences is an occurence)
4. The infinite opposite points within and without the infinite opposite points observe the infinite opposite points existing through fractal gradation as further infinite opposite points.
(Law of Occurence 4: Occurence is transformation empty in itself)
The occurence of time is the occurence of distinction, time is rhythmic change where rhythm is a repeated symmetrical space between distinctions and change is the occurence of one distinction relative to another.
It is the measurement of one change relative to another change where the focal point of change by which other changes are measured is the measurement of a distinction, then another distinction where the space between said distinctions is time. Proof is the hand moving on a clock. A hand is in one space, then another. The position is the hand repeating across space as a space itself. The repetition of new positions, as the hand which is a space in itself, requires a space between them. The manifestion of the space, ie the past position, relative to another, ie the previous position is time. Now the movement of the hand is one rhythmic change and it is used as the starting point of measurement by which another set of changes occurs, for example the number of repetitions of an exercise, a rhythmic change. Time is a set of changes by which other changes are observed.
Now to the specific nature of time:
Time is merely the space between distinctions as the new distinction being the central point of observation. Given the new distinction is without time, as the central point of now contains no change on its own, it contains change only when observed relative to past changes. These past changes are observed relative to what was once current, as comparison requires an observation of the past at the current time, thus relegating the once current time as a past event relative to another past event. An example would be the hand of a clock, the hand is always currently seen only where it is at through the senses, where it was at one point is a past event only observed in the mind as memory. The current position of the hand is only seen as change relative to the past thus as the focal point of the present the present hand contains no change without a comparison to the past hand, thus time becomes a relation of occurences. To compare it to the past would effectively observe the past as a current perception where one past occurence is observed relative to another. In these respects the past, by memory, becomes a current occurence as it is what is being percieved as reality for the current moment.
Time is thus a process of perception by nature of space within and between percieved occurences of distinctions as events. To observe change is to observe the space of events, where events are spatial by nature of containing and being within distinctions as a distinction itself (example a human form is a form like any other and forms are fundamentally space within limits and these limits are the spaces between the space within and without them), thus the space of time (a space) occurs through the space as the distinctions, thus resulting in time being a space between space as a meta space where the conclusion occurs that only space exists and time is merely a meta space that provides a foundation structure to things by being the manifestation of distinction with these distinctions being necessary for limits and limits necessary for perceivable structure.
Time is the relation of distinctions, with these distinctions being space by nature of being forms, with the relationship of these distinctions being a space as time a distinction by which further distinctions occur.
In other terms the occurence of a distinction is change for with the occurence of a distinction a previous distinction is dissolved so that what occurs is distinct by its very nature of being. Change is to create distinctions as a form occurs. One distinction relative to another necessitates a difference by nature of being distinct. This movement is relative, as a fixe point is observed and movement occurs around it. For example one can stay still and observe the distinction of the clouds occuring, one can move and see new distinctions of a supposed fixed thing occuring, or one can move and see both the distinctions of another thing occuring while the new distinction occuring as the thing moving as well. If a thing is not distinct it does not occur, for by distinction a thing exists. Without distinction there is nothing.
Now to cycle back an observe the notion of time as a space within space this space by which times exists by relationship of distinctions observes the distinction fundamentally being forms. Forms are purely space by nature of a simple boundary, or a limit, seperating spaces with this seperation being a space between spaces. Form, as a space between spaces, and time being the space between the space between these spaces, results in a paradoxical notion of existence where the repetition of spaces, as the repetition of distinctions, shows not only a recursive quality to existence but simultaneously an alternation of distinctions between existing and not existing.
Now given that time is recursive, and recursion results in order as by repetition that allows symmetry, order as previously stated, a form is an occurence or the manifestation of change. Thus a form is a localized event of time, and time is observed relative to other times in this respect but also in the respect that to observe the passing of time is to observe an event, a distinction, and the event is effectively a form in this regard. In simpler terms a form is an event, an event is change, and change is time thus forms are not only temporal events but effectively is localized time.
Time, given is necessity of comparison of past to present, is not only recursion where distinctions are repeated, but has a simultaneous dual nature of alternation of distinctions occuring in and out of perception thus observes space as recursive alternation as the act of perception itself where time is fundamentally a paradox: it is the space between spaces. that are spaces between spaces in one respect, while dually being alternation of existence and non existence as recursion where the alternation in and out of existence requires a space between the existences.
Given the current moment is empty in itself without comparison to other moments causality is an everpresent medium where any conception of past or future is merely an observation occuring in the present, by which they arise, thus resulting in the relationship of now being a fixed ever present cause, akin to an empty point when it is without comparison, where one present moment, cause, and another present moment, cause as an empty point, results in a causality that manifests as effects as the comparison of one now to another now, one cause compared to another, gives rise to a form as effect and further cause.
An example of this is a line. There is a 0d point, the absolute cause in one respect as nothing is unchanging by nature of the inability to change for there is nothing to change and the absolute cause in another respect as it is everpresent within a line composed of infinite 0d points. The 0d point is divided into another 0d point as the line itself. This is a paradox as the division of nothingness is pure form by degree of an absence of absence, the negation of negation, by further of inherent contradiction by tension in the respect that the line is the opposition of nothing, 0d point, by virtue of existence, the line. The line is a paradox by nature and the line is a foundational form in observation due to its simplicity. The same cause exists in two different places and the places exists as the negation of nothingness where the line is merely a space dividing space as a paradox in itself, the line in otherwords is the creation of positions. Not only is the cause both beginning an end but effectively results in the line as a loop, a cycle, by virtue of the repetition of the 0d point being a 0d point and the space between the 0d point being the form which comes from it (the line in this case). Form is purely paradox as evidenced by the line. Now in regards to time, it shares this same nature as the line due to its perceptual integrity being the same as it. The "now" is but an everpresent cause, by interpretation and comparison of past and future through it, while dually time is the distinction of one now to another, one cause to another and yet the cause is everpresent just like a 0d point is everpresent in a line, where time becomes the division of the now as the form of things themselves that exist in multiple "nows", given each form existed in a relative "now" when compared. Time is the comparison of multiple "now" thus reflects an everpresent causality where cause becomes effect by the paradoxical negation of itself, the opposition of nothing (which is absolute given nothing cannot change for there is nothing to change) as being. Under these terms existence as distinction is purely time and time is a paradox.
$$$
Paradox is fundamentally the act of transformation and transformation is empty in itself. The act of transformation is the the process of change where a distinction alternates in and out of reality. For something to occur, something must manifest and then dissolve, with this fundamental nature of manifestation and dissolution being a foundational isomorphism as the nature of occurence itself, the paradoxical nature of occurence is inseperable from it foundationally being isomorphic where this foundational isomorphism is the dualism of existence and non-existence which are fundamentally the same thing:
1. Existence has no comparison beyond itself allowing it to be distinct for if Existence had an existence beyond it it would not existence, thus existence cannot exist as there is no distinction that allows it to be. This is a paradox.
2. Non-existence is a distinction by nature of being an absence thus non-existence exists. This is a paradox.
The isomorphism of existence and non-existence is the foundational alternation that is occurence for occurence is the manifestation of change by nature of an event and this change is grounded in not only a paradoxical dualism but effectively an isomorphic nature as seeming opposites are effectively eachother not only by the prescribed paradoxes above but by nature of both having a contrasting relationship necessitating a dependency. To observed the basic dichotomy of existence and non-existence as a central foundation to any metaphysical dialogue would be reduced the foundations to being a pure isomorphism. This dichotomy of existence and non existence, being an occurence as the dichotomy, and occurences as existence and non-existence, reflects both occurencd as an occurence and non-occurence as an occurence by virtue of the inherent paradoxes within existence and non-existence.
Paradox is fundamentally the act of transformation and transformation is empty in itself. The act of transformation is the the process of change where a distinction alternates in and out of reality. For something to occur, something must manifest and then dissolve, with this fundamental nature of manifestation and dissolution being a foundational isomorphism as the nature of occurence itself, the paradoxical nature of occurence is inseperable from it foundationally being isomorphic where this foundational isomorphism is the dualism of existence and non-existence which are fundamentally the same thing:
1. Existence has no comparison beyond itself allowing it to be distinct for if Existence had an existence beyond it it would not existence, thus existence cannot exist as there is no distinction that allows it to be. This is a paradox.
2. Non-existence is a distinction by nature of being an absence thus non-existence exists. This is a paradox.
The isomorphism of existence and non-existence is the foundational alternation that is occurence for occurence is the manifestation of change by nature of an event and this change is grounded in not only a paradoxical dualism but effectively an isomorphic nature as seeming opposites are effectively eachother not only by the prescribed paradoxes above but by nature of both having a contrasting relationship necessitating a dependency. To observed the basic dichotomy of existence and non-existence as a central foundation to any metaphysical dialogue would be reduced the foundations to being a pure isomorphism. This dichotomy of existence and non existence, being an occurence as the dichotomy, and occurences as existence and non-existence, reflects both occurence as an occurence and non-occurence also as an occurence by virtue of the previously mentioned inherent paradoxes that are fundamental to existence and non-existence.
In these respects the occurence of distinction as an occurence necessitates that distinctions are fundamentally isomorphic in nature and any variation of a dualism is effectively an isomorphism and this isomorphism leads to a nature of gradation inherent within them. The gradation occurs as follows:
1. There is existence and non existence as a dualism.
2. There is both existence/non-existence and neither existence/nonexistence as a dualism.
3. These dualisms are a dualism relative to eachother.
4. These dualism are not a dualism relative to eachother.
5. Points 3 and 4 are a dualism relative to eachother.
6. Point 5 is not a dualism.
7. So on to infinitey.
8. Dualism creates further dualism thus resulting in dualism simultaneously resulting in gradation.
+++++
A paradox results within the isomorphic dualism of existence and non-existence as this foundational dualism, contained within all dualisms, necessitates a simple binary nature as resulting in infinite gradation where dualism leads to a non dualistic nature of infinite progression where each grade is effectively a dualism thus resulting in the fundamental conceptual nature of the dualism as existing simultaneously through gradation. The nature of infinite gradation through dualism is a synonymous way of wording that paradox results in infinite grades of transformation thus occurence as paradoxical can be structurally represented by the aforementioned gradation through dualism.
Now this dualism as gradation paradox can be reflected within the foundations of geometry:
1. There is a point.
(Law of Occurence 1: There is an occurence)
2. A second point occurs.
(Law of Occurence 2: There is an occurence relative to another occurence)
3. The opposite points in opposite spaces are still effectively a 0d point where the opposite spaces observe infinite points between them as infinite opposite positions.
(Law of Occurence 3: The relationship of occurences is an occurence)
4. The infinite opposite points within and without the infinite opposite points observe the infinite opposite points existing through fractal gradation as further infinite opposite points.
(Law of Occurence 4: Occurence is transformation empty in itself)
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
An infinitely divided point is like an infinitely divided point particle, as a point particle is often percieved as having no size, the point or point particle is effectively the same within any set of but the space between them changes by manifestation of further points thus causing any set of points to appear smaller even though each individual point/point particle does not change. The change or any point/point particle is purely one of context and thus context is position and yet this position is effectively a manifestation of space. The division of a point/point particle is the multiplication of a point/point particle where the multiplication of either is the simultaneous increase in space. A change in points/point particles is a change in space for with the multiplication of points/point particles comes a corresponding space by which there relations occur.
Space is a product of relations in this context. An example would be two points forming a line, with the addition of another point beyond the second or first the space of the line increases in one respect while the original line may shrink or increase (depending on the position of a new point) resulting in a linear fractal space. A point in one position, or point particle, is effectively the same point, or point particle, in another, thus regardless of position they effectively of are the same being nature given the absence of any specific size results in an absence of form as size is form dependent.
Now a single point/point particle, when viewed on its own terms as alone is effectively a boundless field as there are no dimensions to it and becomes distinct when effectively compare to another point/point particle thus resulting in a composition of points/point particles as a set, with this set being a form, that by nature is a paradox as any space between points/point particles contains the occurence of further points/point particles upon a deeper inspection with this paradox being the transformation of one space, the distance between points/point particles into fractal spaces as the distinction between further points/point particles, thus an observer effect occurs where space observed changes. The singular point/point particles is effectively a boundless void, as an absence of dimensions, where the act of the division of said things is the manifestation of forms, and size relative by nature of relation to other forms, thus resulting in a paradox where form is the negation of void by the division of it through distinction. Form is division by distinction and with distinction as a foundation for existence comes a corresponding distinction of void, as an absence by contrast induced being. This division of void is paradoxical by nature of opposition, as not only is distinction contrasting void but by the nature of distinction being an act of standing apart from something does void become a thing by nature of absence, thus resulting in a paradoxical notion to being as well as a spontaneous nature to things in the respect that being purely occurs from nothing and this spontaneity is evidence by pure occurence of the distinction. This spontaneity of forms occuring is further evidenced within meditation practices where an empty mind results in the spontaneous occurence of thoughts while dually being evidenced by transformative change of a thing by the creation of further distinctinctions and simultaneous dissolution of prior distinctions. In these respects, void shares the same nature across mathematical (number line projecting from 0), geometric, physical, and consciousness as it is the dimensional state from which things occur and is the paradoxical nature by which things are as evidenced by change.
----- Observation is the occurence of change by the occurence of distinction and where there is distinction there is a relative dissolution and manifestation of being by said distinction. To observe a phenomena as distinct is to observe it as existing for distinction is the means of form by which a phenomena inhabits space, either exteriorly through the senses or interiorly through the consciousness. To observe is to make a phenomenon distinct, to stand apart, from other phenomena where the phenomenon is localized from not only a multitude of phenomena with observation but is a localized point from the vast expanse of being. Distinction is to fundamentally observe change in the respect that not only is the impression within the observer changed, by focusing on one point that in turn imprints itself upon the observer as a form of change, but the phenomenon focused upon is effectively interacted with by the movements of awareness. To be aware of something is to make a relationship and by a relationship both actual and potential identity of the phenomena changes as its context for existence, the relationships by which it occurs, changes as well. Context is an inherent part of identity for the context determines how a phenomena is actualized.
Take for example the phenomena of the number line. The center point is 0. This is akin metaphorically and literally to the fundamental act of consciousness as the 'empty mind'. The 0, or 0d point, the empty mind, observes itself as empty as void if truly void is not limited to any physical or abstract construct but rather underlies both. This is the first distinction, the number 1 as the first line, as void is negated into the first form and this first form is both quality and quantity simultaneously. Number 2, the second line, is effectively the cycling of the distinction of 1 upon itself through a fractal recursion. The same follows for number 3, the third line, the number 4, the fourth line, so on an so forth. With every quality comes a simultaneous quantity as quantity is dependent upon form with the purest form being space as a sensory or intuitive construct. All quantities are dependent upon qualities, with the foundational nature of a quality being a space by nature of distinction, and all qualities are dependent upon quantities by nature of the quality being distinct. Now the number line can be seen as simultaneous fractals and recursion for each number makes 1, and the 1 as a line, as a perpetual shrinking fractal as the number line expands while each progressive number is the same for further multiples of it. Inversely each progressive number is a progressively larger fractal of the number 1. Numbers effectively are recursion.
Now the negation of 0 as the number line is the opposition of 0 as form and yet is indefinite as there is no end to the number line, the number line's ending is indefinite as infinite. And yet there is one line and this one line is observed as the line segments which compose it and each line segment is infinite numbers by nature of being infinite line segments within it. The line segment of 1 contains within it .1, .2, 3., etc with .1 containing within it .11, .12, .13., etc. with the infinite fractals and fractals of fractals occuring within each new one. Now each line segment, each number, contains within it and is simultaneously a part of infinite fractals. While a line may have no end, as a number sequence has no end, the line segment as an individual number share this same nature of the line segment as being infinities within infinities thus a paradox ensues as the line segment has a definitive end and yet is infinite, a number may have a definitive limit but contains within it an infinite number of numbers...this paradox is that infinity may be finite and still be infinite.
Now a further paradox ensues as the number line goes forth infinitely, where it's absence of ending always converge at a point if view as perpetually extending. This notion reflects the same nature of the line segment as converging at a point as well and with the line segment being infinite and yet finite, the line is effectively a line segment as well given it is always converging at a point from a relative centerpoint of observation. Even though the line had not end, a point of convergence is always observed, and any progress along the line always maintained as point of convergence. Effectively speaking this puts the line as fundamentally a reflection through its line segments which share the same infinite nature. Given the beginning and ending of the line or line segment is always a point, the point is merely an observation of change much in the same manner consciousness may having a flow of percievable distinctions but changes appears from nothing due to variations in subtle distinctions within it, for example, if one sees a leaf change there is still a leaf but there are variations in the distinction of the leave itself and these changes arise from a potentiality as an absence of distinction. Void, 0, a 0d point, and empty mind can be seen as an uncaused cause where potentiality is the cause of actuality and is ever present and non-linear given it underlies a actualities and all distinctions by being unactual or indistinct.
The dissolution of infinity into zero, evidenced by the infinite nature of a line segments as but a fractal line with the line always convergence at nothing or rather 0, and the dissolution of an empirical or conceptual form into non-form, evidenced by continual change of the form as but repeating properties necessitating a fractal recursion, illuminates experience as having rational boundaries by nature of a cyclic order where cycles are not only the underpinning of experience, by nature of recursion and fractals, but effectively is the order that allows things to occur where the observer is a median of transformation by the observation of distinction induced change.
Space is a product of relations in this context. An example would be two points forming a line, with the addition of another point beyond the second or first the space of the line increases in one respect while the original line may shrink or increase (depending on the position of a new point) resulting in a linear fractal space. A point in one position, or point particle, is effectively the same point, or point particle, in another, thus regardless of position they effectively of are the same being nature given the absence of any specific size results in an absence of form as size is form dependent.
Now a single point/point particle, when viewed on its own terms as alone is effectively a boundless field as there are no dimensions to it and becomes distinct when effectively compare to another point/point particle thus resulting in a composition of points/point particles as a set, with this set being a form, that by nature is a paradox as any space between points/point particles contains the occurence of further points/point particles upon a deeper inspection with this paradox being the transformation of one space, the distance between points/point particles into fractal spaces as the distinction between further points/point particles, thus an observer effect occurs where space observed changes. The singular point/point particles is effectively a boundless void, as an absence of dimensions, where the act of the division of said things is the manifestation of forms, and size relative by nature of relation to other forms, thus resulting in a paradox where form is the negation of void by the division of it through distinction. Form is division by distinction and with distinction as a foundation for existence comes a corresponding distinction of void, as an absence by contrast induced being. This division of void is paradoxical by nature of opposition, as not only is distinction contrasting void but by the nature of distinction being an act of standing apart from something does void become a thing by nature of absence, thus resulting in a paradoxical notion to being as well as a spontaneous nature to things in the respect that being purely occurs from nothing and this spontaneity is evidence by pure occurence of the distinction. This spontaneity of forms occuring is further evidenced within meditation practices where an empty mind results in the spontaneous occurence of thoughts while dually being evidenced by transformative change of a thing by the creation of further distinctinctions and simultaneous dissolution of prior distinctions. In these respects, void shares the same nature across mathematical (number line projecting from 0), geometric, physical, and consciousness as it is the dimensional state from which things occur and is the paradoxical nature by which things are as evidenced by change.
----- Observation is the occurence of change by the occurence of distinction and where there is distinction there is a relative dissolution and manifestation of being by said distinction. To observe a phenomena as distinct is to observe it as existing for distinction is the means of form by which a phenomena inhabits space, either exteriorly through the senses or interiorly through the consciousness. To observe is to make a phenomenon distinct, to stand apart, from other phenomena where the phenomenon is localized from not only a multitude of phenomena with observation but is a localized point from the vast expanse of being. Distinction is to fundamentally observe change in the respect that not only is the impression within the observer changed, by focusing on one point that in turn imprints itself upon the observer as a form of change, but the phenomenon focused upon is effectively interacted with by the movements of awareness. To be aware of something is to make a relationship and by a relationship both actual and potential identity of the phenomena changes as its context for existence, the relationships by which it occurs, changes as well. Context is an inherent part of identity for the context determines how a phenomena is actualized.
Take for example the phenomena of the number line. The center point is 0. This is akin metaphorically and literally to the fundamental act of consciousness as the 'empty mind'. The 0, or 0d point, the empty mind, observes itself as empty as void if truly void is not limited to any physical or abstract construct but rather underlies both. This is the first distinction, the number 1 as the first line, as void is negated into the first form and this first form is both quality and quantity simultaneously. Number 2, the second line, is effectively the cycling of the distinction of 1 upon itself through a fractal recursion. The same follows for number 3, the third line, the number 4, the fourth line, so on an so forth. With every quality comes a simultaneous quantity as quantity is dependent upon form with the purest form being space as a sensory or intuitive construct. All quantities are dependent upon qualities, with the foundational nature of a quality being a space by nature of distinction, and all qualities are dependent upon quantities by nature of the quality being distinct. Now the number line can be seen as simultaneous fractals and recursion for each number makes 1, and the 1 as a line, as a perpetual shrinking fractal as the number line expands while each progressive number is the same for further multiples of it. Inversely each progressive number is a progressively larger fractal of the number 1. Numbers effectively are recursion.
Now the negation of 0 as the number line is the opposition of 0 as form and yet is indefinite as there is no end to the number line, the number line's ending is indefinite as infinite. And yet there is one line and this one line is observed as the line segments which compose it and each line segment is infinite numbers by nature of being infinite line segments within it. The line segment of 1 contains within it .1, .2, 3., etc with .1 containing within it .11, .12, .13., etc. with the infinite fractals and fractals of fractals occuring within each new one. Now each line segment, each number, contains within it and is simultaneously a part of infinite fractals. While a line may have no end, as a number sequence has no end, the line segment as an individual number share this same nature of the line segment as being infinities within infinities thus a paradox ensues as the line segment has a definitive end and yet is infinite, a number may have a definitive limit but contains within it an infinite number of numbers...this paradox is that infinity may be finite and still be infinite.
Now a further paradox ensues as the number line goes forth infinitely, where it's absence of ending always converge at a point if view as perpetually extending. This notion reflects the same nature of the line segment as converging at a point as well and with the line segment being infinite and yet finite, the line is effectively a line segment as well given it is always converging at a point from a relative centerpoint of observation. Even though the line had not end, a point of convergence is always observed, and any progress along the line always maintained as point of convergence. Effectively speaking this puts the line as fundamentally a reflection through its line segments which share the same infinite nature. Given the beginning and ending of the line or line segment is always a point, the point is merely an observation of change much in the same manner consciousness may having a flow of percievable distinctions but changes appears from nothing due to variations in subtle distinctions within it, for example, if one sees a leaf change there is still a leaf but there are variations in the distinction of the leave itself and these changes arise from a potentiality as an absence of distinction. Void, 0, a 0d point, and empty mind can be seen as an uncaused cause where potentiality is the cause of actuality and is ever present and non-linear given it underlies a actualities and all distinctions by being unactual or indistinct.
The dissolution of infinity into zero, evidenced by the infinite nature of a line segments as but a fractal line with the line always convergence at nothing or rather 0, and the dissolution of an empirical or conceptual form into non-form, evidenced by continual change of the form as but repeating properties necessitating a fractal recursion, illuminates experience as having rational boundaries by nature of a cyclic order where cycles are not only the underpinning of experience, by nature of recursion and fractals, but effectively is the order that allows things to occur where the observer is a median of transformation by the observation of distinction induced change.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
++++++++++++++++++
Within any given system of interpretation the observation of a logical linear progression of insight is probabilistic as the contexts which compose the perspective of an observer are subject to actual and potential variation.
In simpler terms, to observe a tree would result in one experience within the context of the observer as the current insights and emotional state of the observer would effect the perception of the tree and within a different time and space of observation, context, the observer may have new insights and emotional states that would effect the observation of the tree even though, relatively speaking, the tree changed little. While each observation of the tree may have specific foundations which manifest no change, within the given context, this absence of change is probabilisitic as it is most likely the tree will be viewed a specific way within given fixed paradigms of understanding and yet minor changes within this paradigm of interpretation, manifested by new meta-viewpoints which cause a subtle variation within the paradigm, allow for potential new observations of the tree which necessitates the actual viewpoint as merely a relation between a fixed and a potentially different paradigm of interpretation where interpretation becomes a dualism of actuality and potentiality much in the same manner that stating "x occurs 90% of the time" is to say that actuality, 90% of what occurs in time and space, occurs relative to a potential difference in the actuality, as being the remaining 10% of difference to what is actual within time and space. Even something as self-evident as a simple assertion of 1+1=2, while a means of interpretation, is probabilistic in how and if it will be understood as evidenced by the observation that this equation has to be taught and taught in various means and degrees as the students have inherent contexts within and through which they observe that determine what and how they are most likely to understand said statement. General a student will understand such assertion, when they share specific contexts that formulate their perspectives, but give subtle variations within these contexts and variations with other contexts the nature of how, when or even if an assertion is understood is merely a case of "how likely". The formation of common percieved truths becomes a non-linear progression, due to the contextual nature of perception, where new insights and understanding are spontaneous and unpredictable and yet within a period of time spontaneous observation of novel axioms effectively created a larger more coherent axiomatic framework much in the same manner that the probabilistic appearance of particles results in a wave and yet within the formation of this wave the particles appear randomly and without any perceivable formal relations at first.
Logical progression is not limited to a linear progress as there is always an inherent phenomenon that exists across phenomenon that connects them by way of being a mediator. Where standard logical discourse would state that "A leads to B leads to C" what is often ignored is that B is a middle term that connects A and C and as a middle phenomenon, when taken on its own terms, can also be observed to mediate other phenomenon as the phenomenon of "B" can be seen to repeat recursively across reality. For example the statement "I am observing rain thus something is wet." The middle phenomenon, "rain", occurs within many different contexts across perceivable reality that effectively webbing to other linearly progressive forms of reasoning such as, "The thunderstorms produce rain thus the plants are watered". So while the linear reasonings remain intact by the progressive phenomena within them, one assertion leading to another, the middle assertion can hold multiple positioning of meaning across contexts and while producing the obvious observation that the phenomena/assertion is contextually oriented, the state of it being repeated across multiple contexts necessitates an inherent recursive layering within percievable reality. The color blue is a phenomenon and yet this phenomenon is repeated across various phenomena, such as cars, flowers, paint, houses, gems...etc., thus necessitating while blue is distinct, it acts as an over arching underlying mediator by which seemingly separate and disparate phenomenon are connected. This middle phenomenon acts as point of transformation between phenomenon as a linear progression of observation necessitates a transformation of observation between one phenomena and another.
Even the assertion of a linearly progressive argument, which requires a foundational point or starting point, is not strictly linearly oriented given the multiplicity of assertions one can begin with in making a linear chain of assertions, is observably without number and any phenomenon can be pick among the innumerable phenomenon as a starting point for any linearly progressive observation. For example, in a simple debate over a subject the degree and manner by which the subject is addressed, how it begins, is potentially infinite as any subject that mediates an argument can be started from any given point within the subject.
In simpler terms, any phenomenon can be used as a starting point by which to measure others and by these terms there is a plethora of self-evident truths necessitated by mere assertion from which to measure things and given the localization of one phenomena within the immeasurable expanse of experiences any phenomenon, assertion, is a relative middlepoint between other phenemona, assertions.
What something is measured by is the manifestation of value where intention is placed upon a phenomena by centering it amidst percievable reality by which to measure it. A framework of interpretation is an expression and intent where frameworks of interpretation are merely the recursion of a percieved valued by which to measure phenomena by. For example, science is a framework where empiricism is valued and intended as a centerpoint of observation, certain facets of mathematics may value and intend by default the abstract nature of number.
The nature of morality can be percieved as the formation of being according to a percieved sense of values that direct being within an intended form. To instill values is to instill a percepetion by which reality is formulated by the values as being a relative cause and this relative cause resulting in the effects by which reality is transformed interiorly and exteriorly. The common, and yet ancient, assertion of "as you reap, so you shall sow" reflects this recursive orientation of value where the value, the metaphorical seeds, transforms the unknown, the metaphorical soil, thus causing a transformation of reality, the metaphorical plant. The other common and ancient assertion of "do unto others as you would do unto yourself" observes a self-reflective cycle of identity as non only does the person manifesting such acts requires a reflected value of that he or she is and of that which he or or she may be but effectively projects that identity upon others as a reflection of the self thus further transforming him or herself but the others by a shared identity. In these respects morality becomes a cycle of values and a cycle of interaction that manifest these values under an identity, and yet there are infinite things that can be valued and innumberable values that can be intended by which to transform reality. So as to morality, is there a correct one? To say one morality is correct over another results in a state of tension and contradiction and inhibits morality as being merely a hollow shell of identity when in reality it may be less of a specific code or framework and more of a process of transformation where new orders are created and old orders are dissolved, new distinctions are created and old distinctions are dissolved, all while maintaining an underlying core of a perceived sense of seeking unity, albeit under different forms and measures. To reduce values unto anyone thing, amidst the infinite things that occurs, necessitates an underlying quality of simplicity through unity thus the common underlying current of morality is one of a simple unity, whether it be the inherent unity of the individual or the inherent unity of a group, where this unity is merely an observation a necessary simplicity to things, both within and through the self and others, and by this simplicity an inherent sense of 'sensicality' for simple things make sense and what makes sense is fundamentally order. To become simple is to reduced boundaries by means of transformation of other boundaries through an elimination or synthesis of what currently exists. To reduce boundaries is to reduce the disparity between attention of multiple things and to synthesize attention upon the current experience, be it interior, exterior and the median between the interior and exterior as what can commonly be percieved of as "the self". This focusing of intention, is a focusing of value, and by focus and sense of value occurs within and through individual and with it a sense of identity that provides a coherent sensible order through which things occur. Morality is less of a measure of right and wrong and more of a process of degrees by which being is refined according to a valued image and in these respects is purely paradoxical by nature and not limited to a pure intellectual grasp but by acknowledgement of the distinction of paradox where all things are given a time and place.
Reality thus becomes a form of projected intentions, in eastern terms a tulpa, where thought manifests reality according to its depth of degrees and intentions and what is valued becomes a projection upon the world as something distinct and this distinct thing can a symbolic notion to it as not only thus it direct and lead towards a transformation of interior experience but exterior experience as well.
Within any given system of interpretation the observation of a logical linear progression of insight is probabilistic as the contexts which compose the perspective of an observer are subject to actual and potential variation.
In simpler terms, to observe a tree would result in one experience within the context of the observer as the current insights and emotional state of the observer would effect the perception of the tree and within a different time and space of observation, context, the observer may have new insights and emotional states that would effect the observation of the tree even though, relatively speaking, the tree changed little. While each observation of the tree may have specific foundations which manifest no change, within the given context, this absence of change is probabilisitic as it is most likely the tree will be viewed a specific way within given fixed paradigms of understanding and yet minor changes within this paradigm of interpretation, manifested by new meta-viewpoints which cause a subtle variation within the paradigm, allow for potential new observations of the tree which necessitates the actual viewpoint as merely a relation between a fixed and a potentially different paradigm of interpretation where interpretation becomes a dualism of actuality and potentiality much in the same manner that stating "x occurs 90% of the time" is to say that actuality, 90% of what occurs in time and space, occurs relative to a potential difference in the actuality, as being the remaining 10% of difference to what is actual within time and space. Even something as self-evident as a simple assertion of 1+1=2, while a means of interpretation, is probabilistic in how and if it will be understood as evidenced by the observation that this equation has to be taught and taught in various means and degrees as the students have inherent contexts within and through which they observe that determine what and how they are most likely to understand said statement. General a student will understand such assertion, when they share specific contexts that formulate their perspectives, but give subtle variations within these contexts and variations with other contexts the nature of how, when or even if an assertion is understood is merely a case of "how likely". The formation of common percieved truths becomes a non-linear progression, due to the contextual nature of perception, where new insights and understanding are spontaneous and unpredictable and yet within a period of time spontaneous observation of novel axioms effectively created a larger more coherent axiomatic framework much in the same manner that the probabilistic appearance of particles results in a wave and yet within the formation of this wave the particles appear randomly and without any perceivable formal relations at first.
Logical progression is not limited to a linear progress as there is always an inherent phenomenon that exists across phenomenon that connects them by way of being a mediator. Where standard logical discourse would state that "A leads to B leads to C" what is often ignored is that B is a middle term that connects A and C and as a middle phenomenon, when taken on its own terms, can also be observed to mediate other phenomenon as the phenomenon of "B" can be seen to repeat recursively across reality. For example the statement "I am observing rain thus something is wet." The middle phenomenon, "rain", occurs within many different contexts across perceivable reality that effectively webbing to other linearly progressive forms of reasoning such as, "The thunderstorms produce rain thus the plants are watered". So while the linear reasonings remain intact by the progressive phenomena within them, one assertion leading to another, the middle assertion can hold multiple positioning of meaning across contexts and while producing the obvious observation that the phenomena/assertion is contextually oriented, the state of it being repeated across multiple contexts necessitates an inherent recursive layering within percievable reality. The color blue is a phenomenon and yet this phenomenon is repeated across various phenomena, such as cars, flowers, paint, houses, gems...etc., thus necessitating while blue is distinct, it acts as an over arching underlying mediator by which seemingly separate and disparate phenomenon are connected. This middle phenomenon acts as point of transformation between phenomenon as a linear progression of observation necessitates a transformation of observation between one phenomena and another.
Even the assertion of a linearly progressive argument, which requires a foundational point or starting point, is not strictly linearly oriented given the multiplicity of assertions one can begin with in making a linear chain of assertions, is observably without number and any phenomenon can be pick among the innumerable phenomenon as a starting point for any linearly progressive observation. For example, in a simple debate over a subject the degree and manner by which the subject is addressed, how it begins, is potentially infinite as any subject that mediates an argument can be started from any given point within the subject.
In simpler terms, any phenomenon can be used as a starting point by which to measure others and by these terms there is a plethora of self-evident truths necessitated by mere assertion from which to measure things and given the localization of one phenomena within the immeasurable expanse of experiences any phenomenon, assertion, is a relative middlepoint between other phenemona, assertions.
What something is measured by is the manifestation of value where intention is placed upon a phenomena by centering it amidst percievable reality by which to measure it. A framework of interpretation is an expression and intent where frameworks of interpretation are merely the recursion of a percieved valued by which to measure phenomena by. For example, science is a framework where empiricism is valued and intended as a centerpoint of observation, certain facets of mathematics may value and intend by default the abstract nature of number.
The nature of morality can be percieved as the formation of being according to a percieved sense of values that direct being within an intended form. To instill values is to instill a percepetion by which reality is formulated by the values as being a relative cause and this relative cause resulting in the effects by which reality is transformed interiorly and exteriorly. The common, and yet ancient, assertion of "as you reap, so you shall sow" reflects this recursive orientation of value where the value, the metaphorical seeds, transforms the unknown, the metaphorical soil, thus causing a transformation of reality, the metaphorical plant. The other common and ancient assertion of "do unto others as you would do unto yourself" observes a self-reflective cycle of identity as non only does the person manifesting such acts requires a reflected value of that he or she is and of that which he or or she may be but effectively projects that identity upon others as a reflection of the self thus further transforming him or herself but the others by a shared identity. In these respects morality becomes a cycle of values and a cycle of interaction that manifest these values under an identity, and yet there are infinite things that can be valued and innumberable values that can be intended by which to transform reality. So as to morality, is there a correct one? To say one morality is correct over another results in a state of tension and contradiction and inhibits morality as being merely a hollow shell of identity when in reality it may be less of a specific code or framework and more of a process of transformation where new orders are created and old orders are dissolved, new distinctions are created and old distinctions are dissolved, all while maintaining an underlying core of a perceived sense of seeking unity, albeit under different forms and measures. To reduce values unto anyone thing, amidst the infinite things that occurs, necessitates an underlying quality of simplicity through unity thus the common underlying current of morality is one of a simple unity, whether it be the inherent unity of the individual or the inherent unity of a group, where this unity is merely an observation a necessary simplicity to things, both within and through the self and others, and by this simplicity an inherent sense of 'sensicality' for simple things make sense and what makes sense is fundamentally order. To become simple is to reduced boundaries by means of transformation of other boundaries through an elimination or synthesis of what currently exists. To reduce boundaries is to reduce the disparity between attention of multiple things and to synthesize attention upon the current experience, be it interior, exterior and the median between the interior and exterior as what can commonly be percieved of as "the self". This focusing of intention, is a focusing of value, and by focus and sense of value occurs within and through individual and with it a sense of identity that provides a coherent sensible order through which things occur. Morality is less of a measure of right and wrong and more of a process of degrees by which being is refined according to a valued image and in these respects is purely paradoxical by nature and not limited to a pure intellectual grasp but by acknowledgement of the distinction of paradox where all things are given a time and place.
Reality thus becomes a form of projected intentions, in eastern terms a tulpa, where thought manifests reality according to its depth of degrees and intentions and what is valued becomes a projection upon the world as something distinct and this distinct thing can a symbolic notion to it as not only thus it direct and lead towards a transformation of interior experience but exterior experience as well.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
++++++
The central nature of morality is a process of moderation through the practice of balance maintained by the given attention upon an experience, as an experience within the experience, that cultivates a sense of simplicity and authenticity by an awareness of all degrees and sides of existence for what they are that allows for a transcendence of percievable being through the integration of conflicting opposites in internal an external experience and by the negation of contradiction a revelation and awareness of identity.
All conflict is rooted in excessive conditions or behavior and thus is an imbalance that further exacerbates the percieved problem by an absence of awareness that is embodied within the conflict by a fragmented form of attention made manifest through ignorance of a holistic experience due to said extremes. Through extremes, there is polarity, through polarity conflict, through conflict complexity, through complexity a fragmented sense of being that results in an inauthentic experience that creates barriers within the self and between others.
Morality is the means through which the human condition occurs and there are innummerable modalities and yet a central underlying one as stated previously.
Morality is fundamentally an occurence, as it is a process or event that gives form to identity. It exists fundamentally as the manifestation of the laws of occurence mentioned previously but to elaborate again:
Law 1: There is occurence. (A)
Law 2: There is an occurence relative to another occurence.
(A)(b)
Law 3: This relationship is an occurence. ((A)(b))
Law 4: Occurence is transient by nature of being
empty in itself. ( )
All occurences can be unique and are transient processes as identity strictly is the occurence of something, identity "just is" by nature of it occurring. Even uniqueness is subject to occurence.
Occurence 'just is' so rather than saying "tree is tree", as the identity of the tree in a classical approach, these laws take a simple and common sense of approach where there is just "tree" first, "tree with needles on it" in second, "pine tree" in third, and fourth "pine tree changing to x". From a moral context occurence is "the individual" then the "individual relative to the individual" then the "relationship of individuals as an individual entity" then "the process of the individual as trabsformative".
Under that context of uniqueness:
Law 1: A unique occurence. (Occurence)
Law 2: One unique occurence is relative to another unique occurence. (Relationship of occurences)
Law 3: The relationship of these unique occurences in turn a unique occurence. (Relationship as occurence)
Law 4: All occurences are inherently empty thus transitional, identity as occurence is a process and as a process Have a unique nature as changing. (Occurence as transitional process)
However occurence is not limited to uniqueness as it is the grounds of it, the means through which it is, and the conclusion of how uniqueness occurs. But yes, every occurence can have unique properties making no two occurence the same other than the context of them being occurences.
The laws have an self referencing variation, where occurence is dually the same while having infinite variations. So yes, all identities have unique properties.
Given a holistic morality of finding a center point through moderation as an act of transformative balance where what is unnecessary is released by constant awareness there is a certain metaphysics to the central act of paying attention by one pointed awareness as an experience. This one pointed awareness, the act of focus or paying attention, is not only pivotal for the transformation of being but effectively is of a void origin given to pay attention not only requires an emptying of the mind, akin to making it a point, but the focusing of the mind upon a point.
The deepest foundational occurrence of existence is a simple point.
All forms occur through points, as points through points as points, and the relationship of points is how forms occur where this relationship is the occurence of the self maintained context of points where the point is a self referencing product of itself through infinite variations that manifest progressive self referencing; the point contains itself through relations with other points as the relation of points to others points is the manifestation of itself through through relations as itself for the point is purely transitional as relations. It is the occurence of context as it's own context for the point is the manifestation of context.
All distinctions are forms given form is how consciousness occurs and intuitively one seeks the point of a question or endeavor and in these respects geometry becomes an intuitive process of the psyche while embodying this very same nature of a single point through the inherent emptiness of the mind by which gaps in experience occur thus resulting in an inherent spontaneity by which further experience appears.
The foundational occurence is the simple point. It is the occurence through which all occurs, manifests and is maintained.
The boundary of consciousness is the paradox of consciousness for it is the limits which form it as distinct. Given consciousness operates by distinction, for the perception of relations to occur and with relations order by and through which consciousness can operate, the limits of consciousness are the very distinction it creates by which to perceive itself. However considering consciousness perceives itself by what it is not, a deeper paradox occurs given conscious becomes what it is not and no definitive nature can be given to consciousness outside of it being paradoxical.
?????
The utmost limit of observation is the 'observation of observation' as a repeatable process thus necessitating observation of this process through this very same process unto infinity further reflecting the act of observation as paradoxically indistinct in one respect, by nature of this infinite nature of said cycle, and distinct in another, by the cyclical nature of the infinite, thus further resulting in observation as effectively empty, or transient, in one respect while seeing the distinct occurence of forms, arising from this inherent nothingness, in an unending yet perpetual finite transforming variation where said forms take on a simultaneous nature inherent within observation by acting as transformative filters, to further observable forms, through which distinctions are made relative to other distinctions in the respect of connecting and separating some distinctions from others by nature of the inherent 'filter forms', ie forms which mold perspective, being value judgements that act as pivotal points that direct the act of observation.
Conceptualization is thus not only a product of consciousness but effectively consciousness itself thus relegating knowing as a paradox.
Knowledge is an epistemological subject that science does not address except through an assumed process. Science is not the be all and end all source of knowledge without being subject to its own paradigm (ie apply the scientific method to the scientific method).
What consciousness is is an unfounded assertion over what is conscious and what it is not given the premise of the subjectivity of awareness necessitating one cannot prove or disprove a rock is conscious without stepping out of the subjective state.
Whether a rock is conscious or unconscious is unknowable if consciousness is purely subjective as one is inhibited by the limits of their subjectivity. Given the limits of said subjectivity consciousness becomes inherently finite by these standards as knowledge is filtered by 'value occurences' where either a spontaneous or determined notion of values within the self sets a defined limit as to what can be known and thus contradiction ensues when multiple differing values occur leaving a sense of incoherence within the purely assumed notion of pure subjectivity.
To become aware of reality and to distill it to a formalism would end in a paradox:
An all encompassing system of logic, that underlies all experience of existence as existence itself, would be so fundamental and foundational to all things that it's general use would lead to such a high degree of subtlety as to be indistinct and meaningless, other than the system building upon itself through itself in infinite recursion, given that it's foundations could not be grasped without using the very same foundations to grasp it, this ending in a perpetual cycle.
Formality of truth manifests a deeper paradox:
If a tautology is absolute within the context of certain logical systems, and these absolute truths very with the logical system applied, this necessitates these absolute truths are purely relative to specific logical structures where the logical structure applied is strictly a choice thus making absolute truth simultaneously relative and paradoxical, further leading to the conclusion that absolute logical truth is a byproduct of randomness and has no real foundations other than occurence.
If an identity is an identity because it is not another identity, as evidenced by the Law of Identity and Law of Non-Contradiction, identity is merely the absence of other identities and the absence of absence is the identity itself thus sets the foundations of identity as self-contradiction.
If the Law of Identity occurs through differing variations that stand apart, for if it did not it would not be a universal law, and these variations are connected through the LI, the LI relies on the absence of unity between things to paradoxically result in a unity between things, under the law, thus is grounded in paradox as things are equal to themselves by their differences. For example a tree is a tree and a cat is a cat, a tree is not a cat and yet both are unified by the law of identity.
There is another identity paradox, albeit a solvable one:
The paradox of "x is not x therefore x" solved when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x are purely observations of context.
Context determines answers and in quantify the context of everything results in a further paradox:
Proof by quantification allows 1=0:
There is 1 totality, as there is only all.
This totality is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality.
Without comparison the totality is indistinct.
As indistinct it is not a thing, it is nothing, thus 0.
Quantifying the totality results in the paradox of 1=0.
Qualifying the totality results in being as nothing.
To step back from these paradoxes, and ignore the qualititative and quantitative values within them would effectively leave the paradoxes as making the assertion "is". Truth value, logical formalism, and things of the sort while observing relations can be distilled to a recursive occurence of "is" where identity becomes not so much of a fixed attribute but rather an assertion of being.
To elaborate on this point one can state:
1. A tree is a set of x.
2. The tree is.
3. The set is.
4. x is.
5. To reduce the statement down to its most essentially level would be to say (-t-is)is(-s-is)is(-x-is) or rather "is is is is" where "is" takes on various forms of events and yet is an event nonetheless thus making any fundamental statement of identity, and formalism, be events nested within events.
Given "is" is an event, an occurence, identity takes one the role of interwoven events that are not limited to a linear framework.
To speak of consciousness, and identity by nature of the distinctions by which consciousness takes place, would reduce it to a focal point of change by which one thing transforms into another thus relegating consciousness as but an empty concept in one respect but the experience of reality transforming by it being a formless point of potential in another. The layering of events by which it manifests forms as identity are mere recursive cycles which contain no distinction other than a formless potentiality as effectively nothing, being distinct only in relation to the actuality of the distinctions it makes by nature of being an absence of said distinctions by nature of being a potential for them. Consciousness is thus absolute, by nature of being nothing, and the causality of reality is merely the institution of change by an everpresent potentiality through which forms and distinctions transform. Consciousness thus is unmoved as potentiality is not actuality, potentiality is not a thing, and yet it moves by nature of distinctions arising and dissolving back into it.
?????
The ancient notion of the unmoved mover, God as uncaused omnipresent cause, the Great unity and so on are mere metaphors and symbols for the empty nature of consciousness that unfolded cyclic interwoven distinctions. God, in these respects, can be observed as a term synonymous in meaning to "a guiding apex experience of consciousness as consciousness, by degree of paradox where the central emptiness of experience by which consciousness operates is an omnipresent void through interwoven perpetual cycles occur and dissolve that is akin to the simultaneous notions of Buddhist and Taoist empty cyclical paradoxes, Hegelian paradoxes, Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, Plotinus/Spinoza/Pythagorean Monad, Liebniz/Lucretius Monads. The synthesis being these philosophical degrees are evident as the occurence of consciousness itself.
.
The central nature of morality is a process of moderation through the practice of balance maintained by the given attention upon an experience, as an experience within the experience, that cultivates a sense of simplicity and authenticity by an awareness of all degrees and sides of existence for what they are that allows for a transcendence of percievable being through the integration of conflicting opposites in internal an external experience and by the negation of contradiction a revelation and awareness of identity.
All conflict is rooted in excessive conditions or behavior and thus is an imbalance that further exacerbates the percieved problem by an absence of awareness that is embodied within the conflict by a fragmented form of attention made manifest through ignorance of a holistic experience due to said extremes. Through extremes, there is polarity, through polarity conflict, through conflict complexity, through complexity a fragmented sense of being that results in an inauthentic experience that creates barriers within the self and between others.
Morality is the means through which the human condition occurs and there are innummerable modalities and yet a central underlying one as stated previously.
Morality is fundamentally an occurence, as it is a process or event that gives form to identity. It exists fundamentally as the manifestation of the laws of occurence mentioned previously but to elaborate again:
Law 1: There is occurence. (A)
Law 2: There is an occurence relative to another occurence.
(A)(b)
Law 3: This relationship is an occurence. ((A)(b))
Law 4: Occurence is transient by nature of being
empty in itself. ( )
All occurences can be unique and are transient processes as identity strictly is the occurence of something, identity "just is" by nature of it occurring. Even uniqueness is subject to occurence.
Occurence 'just is' so rather than saying "tree is tree", as the identity of the tree in a classical approach, these laws take a simple and common sense of approach where there is just "tree" first, "tree with needles on it" in second, "pine tree" in third, and fourth "pine tree changing to x". From a moral context occurence is "the individual" then the "individual relative to the individual" then the "relationship of individuals as an individual entity" then "the process of the individual as trabsformative".
Under that context of uniqueness:
Law 1: A unique occurence. (Occurence)
Law 2: One unique occurence is relative to another unique occurence. (Relationship of occurences)
Law 3: The relationship of these unique occurences in turn a unique occurence. (Relationship as occurence)
Law 4: All occurences are inherently empty thus transitional, identity as occurence is a process and as a process Have a unique nature as changing. (Occurence as transitional process)
However occurence is not limited to uniqueness as it is the grounds of it, the means through which it is, and the conclusion of how uniqueness occurs. But yes, every occurence can have unique properties making no two occurence the same other than the context of them being occurences.
The laws have an self referencing variation, where occurence is dually the same while having infinite variations. So yes, all identities have unique properties.
Given a holistic morality of finding a center point through moderation as an act of transformative balance where what is unnecessary is released by constant awareness there is a certain metaphysics to the central act of paying attention by one pointed awareness as an experience. This one pointed awareness, the act of focus or paying attention, is not only pivotal for the transformation of being but effectively is of a void origin given to pay attention not only requires an emptying of the mind, akin to making it a point, but the focusing of the mind upon a point.
The deepest foundational occurrence of existence is a simple point.
All forms occur through points, as points through points as points, and the relationship of points is how forms occur where this relationship is the occurence of the self maintained context of points where the point is a self referencing product of itself through infinite variations that manifest progressive self referencing; the point contains itself through relations with other points as the relation of points to others points is the manifestation of itself through through relations as itself for the point is purely transitional as relations. It is the occurence of context as it's own context for the point is the manifestation of context.
All distinctions are forms given form is how consciousness occurs and intuitively one seeks the point of a question or endeavor and in these respects geometry becomes an intuitive process of the psyche while embodying this very same nature of a single point through the inherent emptiness of the mind by which gaps in experience occur thus resulting in an inherent spontaneity by which further experience appears.
The foundational occurence is the simple point. It is the occurence through which all occurs, manifests and is maintained.
The boundary of consciousness is the paradox of consciousness for it is the limits which form it as distinct. Given consciousness operates by distinction, for the perception of relations to occur and with relations order by and through which consciousness can operate, the limits of consciousness are the very distinction it creates by which to perceive itself. However considering consciousness perceives itself by what it is not, a deeper paradox occurs given conscious becomes what it is not and no definitive nature can be given to consciousness outside of it being paradoxical.
?????
The utmost limit of observation is the 'observation of observation' as a repeatable process thus necessitating observation of this process through this very same process unto infinity further reflecting the act of observation as paradoxically indistinct in one respect, by nature of this infinite nature of said cycle, and distinct in another, by the cyclical nature of the infinite, thus further resulting in observation as effectively empty, or transient, in one respect while seeing the distinct occurence of forms, arising from this inherent nothingness, in an unending yet perpetual finite transforming variation where said forms take on a simultaneous nature inherent within observation by acting as transformative filters, to further observable forms, through which distinctions are made relative to other distinctions in the respect of connecting and separating some distinctions from others by nature of the inherent 'filter forms', ie forms which mold perspective, being value judgements that act as pivotal points that direct the act of observation.
Conceptualization is thus not only a product of consciousness but effectively consciousness itself thus relegating knowing as a paradox.
Knowledge is an epistemological subject that science does not address except through an assumed process. Science is not the be all and end all source of knowledge without being subject to its own paradigm (ie apply the scientific method to the scientific method).
What consciousness is is an unfounded assertion over what is conscious and what it is not given the premise of the subjectivity of awareness necessitating one cannot prove or disprove a rock is conscious without stepping out of the subjective state.
Whether a rock is conscious or unconscious is unknowable if consciousness is purely subjective as one is inhibited by the limits of their subjectivity. Given the limits of said subjectivity consciousness becomes inherently finite by these standards as knowledge is filtered by 'value occurences' where either a spontaneous or determined notion of values within the self sets a defined limit as to what can be known and thus contradiction ensues when multiple differing values occur leaving a sense of incoherence within the purely assumed notion of pure subjectivity.
To become aware of reality and to distill it to a formalism would end in a paradox:
An all encompassing system of logic, that underlies all experience of existence as existence itself, would be so fundamental and foundational to all things that it's general use would lead to such a high degree of subtlety as to be indistinct and meaningless, other than the system building upon itself through itself in infinite recursion, given that it's foundations could not be grasped without using the very same foundations to grasp it, this ending in a perpetual cycle.
Formality of truth manifests a deeper paradox:
If a tautology is absolute within the context of certain logical systems, and these absolute truths very with the logical system applied, this necessitates these absolute truths are purely relative to specific logical structures where the logical structure applied is strictly a choice thus making absolute truth simultaneously relative and paradoxical, further leading to the conclusion that absolute logical truth is a byproduct of randomness and has no real foundations other than occurence.
If an identity is an identity because it is not another identity, as evidenced by the Law of Identity and Law of Non-Contradiction, identity is merely the absence of other identities and the absence of absence is the identity itself thus sets the foundations of identity as self-contradiction.
If the Law of Identity occurs through differing variations that stand apart, for if it did not it would not be a universal law, and these variations are connected through the LI, the LI relies on the absence of unity between things to paradoxically result in a unity between things, under the law, thus is grounded in paradox as things are equal to themselves by their differences. For example a tree is a tree and a cat is a cat, a tree is not a cat and yet both are unified by the law of identity.
There is another identity paradox, albeit a solvable one:
The paradox of "x is not x therefore x" solved when x is defined in one context, where x is x, and in another, where x is not x, with both contexts happening simultaneously, hence the solution to this paradox is context application, where both values of x are purely observations of context.
Context determines answers and in quantify the context of everything results in a further paradox:
Proof by quantification allows 1=0:
There is 1 totality, as there is only all.
This totality is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality.
Without comparison the totality is indistinct.
As indistinct it is not a thing, it is nothing, thus 0.
Quantifying the totality results in the paradox of 1=0.
Qualifying the totality results in being as nothing.
To step back from these paradoxes, and ignore the qualititative and quantitative values within them would effectively leave the paradoxes as making the assertion "is". Truth value, logical formalism, and things of the sort while observing relations can be distilled to a recursive occurence of "is" where identity becomes not so much of a fixed attribute but rather an assertion of being.
To elaborate on this point one can state:
1. A tree is a set of x.
2. The tree is.
3. The set is.
4. x is.
5. To reduce the statement down to its most essentially level would be to say (-t-is)is(-s-is)is(-x-is) or rather "is is is is" where "is" takes on various forms of events and yet is an event nonetheless thus making any fundamental statement of identity, and formalism, be events nested within events.
Given "is" is an event, an occurence, identity takes one the role of interwoven events that are not limited to a linear framework.
To speak of consciousness, and identity by nature of the distinctions by which consciousness takes place, would reduce it to a focal point of change by which one thing transforms into another thus relegating consciousness as but an empty concept in one respect but the experience of reality transforming by it being a formless point of potential in another. The layering of events by which it manifests forms as identity are mere recursive cycles which contain no distinction other than a formless potentiality as effectively nothing, being distinct only in relation to the actuality of the distinctions it makes by nature of being an absence of said distinctions by nature of being a potential for them. Consciousness is thus absolute, by nature of being nothing, and the causality of reality is merely the institution of change by an everpresent potentiality through which forms and distinctions transform. Consciousness thus is unmoved as potentiality is not actuality, potentiality is not a thing, and yet it moves by nature of distinctions arising and dissolving back into it.
?????
The ancient notion of the unmoved mover, God as uncaused omnipresent cause, the Great unity and so on are mere metaphors and symbols for the empty nature of consciousness that unfolded cyclic interwoven distinctions. God, in these respects, can be observed as a term synonymous in meaning to "a guiding apex experience of consciousness as consciousness, by degree of paradox where the central emptiness of experience by which consciousness operates is an omnipresent void through interwoven perpetual cycles occur and dissolve that is akin to the simultaneous notions of Buddhist and Taoist empty cyclical paradoxes, Hegelian paradoxes, Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, Plotinus/Spinoza/Pythagorean Monad, Liebniz/Lucretius Monads. The synthesis being these philosophical degrees are evident as the occurence of consciousness itself.
.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
+++++++
1. The repetition of a phenomenon is the recursion of a phenomena.
Example: A point repeating is the recursion of the point.
Example: A tree repeating is the recursion of the tree.
Example: An experience repeating is the recursion of the experience.
2. The repetition of a phenomenon is in itself the creation of a new phenomenon as the repetition of a phenomenon is a phenomenon.
Example: A point repeating results in a line.
Example: A tree repeating results in a forest.
Example: An experience repeating results in a new experience.
3. This new phenomenon is a variation of the foundations of the phenomena, and yet as composed of said foundations is the foundations thus recursion results in isomorphism.
Example: The point repeating as a line necessitates the line as composed of nothing but points thus the line is a variation of the points and thus it is a point.
Example: The tree repeating as forest necessitates nothing but points thus the forest is a variation of the tree and this it is a tree.
Example: The experience repeating as a new experience necessitating nothing but experience thus the new experience is a variation of the foundational experience and thus is the foundational experience.
4. The phenomenon exists as both recursive and isomorphic. The phenomenon is thus a variable where is exists across many phenomena thus is a means of change, a point of transformation.
Example: The point is a means by which further forms occur and as such is the means by which change and transformation is.
Example: The tree is a means by which further trees occur and as such is the means by which change and transformation is.
Example: The experience is a means by which further experiences occur and as such is the means by which change and transformation is.
Recursion results in isomorphism and isomorphism results in recursion, they are effectively a dualism within the act of change.
By occurence does identity manifest for the occurence of a thing is it's identity for there is no identity but the occurence of a thing. This identity is a process of recursion and isomorphism where a paradox ensues of one phenomena becoming many and many connecting as one. This paradoxical nature within the act of change is the act of change itself thus reality as being transformative is reality as a paradox for paradox institutes change by the connection and seperation of opposites. The nature of a thing being both one and many necessitates it as a variable as a variable is one thing with many meaning and many meanings converge at a single point as a variable itself.
However this nature of occurence necessitates an underlying set of laws:
1. Recursion
2. Isomorphism
3. Variability
These laws reflect the laws of occurence itself:
1. There is occurence, occurence as a phenomenon is recursive, isomorphic and a variable.
2. One occurence is relative to another, occurence as a phenonemon is recursive.
3. This relationship of occurences is an occurence, occurence as a phenomenon is isomorphic.
4. Occurence is inherently empty in itself thus transformative, occurence as a phenomenon is a variable that manifests change as the occurence is the means through other occurences occur and all occurences are but an occurence.
The 3 laws of recursion, isomorphism and variability are occurences thus are interwoven with the 4 Laws of Occurence. Laws are merely a means of interpretation with interpretation being the means by which awareness occurs.
To verify these laws would effectively require the use of them thus become a self evident loop.
1. "There is occurence" is verified by the occurence of this assertion.
2. "Occurence is relative to another occurence" is verified by the occurence of this assertion and the occurence of the observer.
3. "The relationship of occurences is an occurence" is verified by the occurence of the relationship between this assertion and the observer.
4. "Occurence is empty in itself and transformative" is verified by the assertion being a means of changes in awareness as one state of awareness transforms into another and this assertion means nothing in itself.
5. Recursion as occurence is verified by observing occurence repeat.
5. Isomorphism as occurence is verified by observing occurence as foundational manifesting as occurences being nested and yet these nested occurences are occurence manifesting.
7. Variability as occurence is verified by observing occurence being the means for further occurences and further occurences being rooted in occurence thus occurence is both one an many.
8. Verification is a self sustaining loop as the occurence of a phenomenon justifies the test and the test is the means by which a phenomenon is interpreted as being interpreted as what it is. Empirical testing would effectively be the occurence of the test and the tested thing, following the four laws of occurence, where the test would be an isomorphism of the tested, by nature of being a variation of the occurence through the occurence of the interpretation, a recursion of the test and the tested by repetition of distinctions across the abstract and empirical and dually the test/tested would be the means of transformation by which further tests/tested phenomena occur.
1. The repetition of a phenomenon is the recursion of a phenomena.
Example: A point repeating is the recursion of the point.
Example: A tree repeating is the recursion of the tree.
Example: An experience repeating is the recursion of the experience.
2. The repetition of a phenomenon is in itself the creation of a new phenomenon as the repetition of a phenomenon is a phenomenon.
Example: A point repeating results in a line.
Example: A tree repeating results in a forest.
Example: An experience repeating results in a new experience.
3. This new phenomenon is a variation of the foundations of the phenomena, and yet as composed of said foundations is the foundations thus recursion results in isomorphism.
Example: The point repeating as a line necessitates the line as composed of nothing but points thus the line is a variation of the points and thus it is a point.
Example: The tree repeating as forest necessitates nothing but points thus the forest is a variation of the tree and this it is a tree.
Example: The experience repeating as a new experience necessitating nothing but experience thus the new experience is a variation of the foundational experience and thus is the foundational experience.
4. The phenomenon exists as both recursive and isomorphic. The phenomenon is thus a variable where is exists across many phenomena thus is a means of change, a point of transformation.
Example: The point is a means by which further forms occur and as such is the means by which change and transformation is.
Example: The tree is a means by which further trees occur and as such is the means by which change and transformation is.
Example: The experience is a means by which further experiences occur and as such is the means by which change and transformation is.
Recursion results in isomorphism and isomorphism results in recursion, they are effectively a dualism within the act of change.
By occurence does identity manifest for the occurence of a thing is it's identity for there is no identity but the occurence of a thing. This identity is a process of recursion and isomorphism where a paradox ensues of one phenomena becoming many and many connecting as one. This paradoxical nature within the act of change is the act of change itself thus reality as being transformative is reality as a paradox for paradox institutes change by the connection and seperation of opposites. The nature of a thing being both one and many necessitates it as a variable as a variable is one thing with many meaning and many meanings converge at a single point as a variable itself.
However this nature of occurence necessitates an underlying set of laws:
1. Recursion
2. Isomorphism
3. Variability
These laws reflect the laws of occurence itself:
1. There is occurence, occurence as a phenomenon is recursive, isomorphic and a variable.
2. One occurence is relative to another, occurence as a phenonemon is recursive.
3. This relationship of occurences is an occurence, occurence as a phenomenon is isomorphic.
4. Occurence is inherently empty in itself thus transformative, occurence as a phenomenon is a variable that manifests change as the occurence is the means through other occurences occur and all occurences are but an occurence.
The 3 laws of recursion, isomorphism and variability are occurences thus are interwoven with the 4 Laws of Occurence. Laws are merely a means of interpretation with interpretation being the means by which awareness occurs.
To verify these laws would effectively require the use of them thus become a self evident loop.
1. "There is occurence" is verified by the occurence of this assertion.
2. "Occurence is relative to another occurence" is verified by the occurence of this assertion and the occurence of the observer.
3. "The relationship of occurences is an occurence" is verified by the occurence of the relationship between this assertion and the observer.
4. "Occurence is empty in itself and transformative" is verified by the assertion being a means of changes in awareness as one state of awareness transforms into another and this assertion means nothing in itself.
5. Recursion as occurence is verified by observing occurence repeat.
5. Isomorphism as occurence is verified by observing occurence as foundational manifesting as occurences being nested and yet these nested occurences are occurence manifesting.
7. Variability as occurence is verified by observing occurence being the means for further occurences and further occurences being rooted in occurence thus occurence is both one an many.
8. Verification is a self sustaining loop as the occurence of a phenomenon justifies the test and the test is the means by which a phenomenon is interpreted as being interpreted as what it is. Empirical testing would effectively be the occurence of the test and the tested thing, following the four laws of occurence, where the test would be an isomorphism of the tested, by nature of being a variation of the occurence through the occurence of the interpretation, a recursion of the test and the tested by repetition of distinctions across the abstract and empirical and dually the test/tested would be the means of transformation by which further tests/tested phenomena occur.
-
Martin Peter Clarke
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:54 pm
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Yeahhhh. To the OP. Things, as a superset of shit, happen. Starting with the dimensionless minimalist points of existence from which all else emerges, from eternity, for infinity.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Do you actually understand Eodnhodg ! You have more patience than I if you can read his long meanderings.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 10:12 am Yeahhhh. To the OP. Things, as a superset of shit, happen. Starting with the dimensionless minimalist points of existence from which all else emerges, from eternity, for infinity.
-
Martin Peter Clarke
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:54 pm
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
One can deconstruct and engage from there.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 11:05 amDo you actually understand Eodnhodg ! You have more patience than I if you can read his long meanderings.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 10:12 am Yeahhhh. To the OP. Things, as a superset of shit, happen. Starting with the dimensionless minimalist points of existence from which all else emerges, from eternity, for infinity.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Deconstructing and engaging is a higher level of reading. Can you actually synthesise Eodnhodj's long posts into a short and pithy conclusion? i'd be quite interested to read that.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 12:20 pmOne can deconstruct and engage from there.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 11:05 amDo you actually understand Eodnhodg ! You have more patience than I if you can read his long meanderings.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 10:12 am Yeahhhh. To the OP. Things, as a superset of shit, happen. Starting with the dimensionless minimalist points of existence from which all else emerges, from eternity, for infinity.
-
Martin Peter Clarke
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:54 pm
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
Ooooh. I'll try. But my beholder's share of his metaphysical metaphors will not be yours, or his! Run them through ChatGPT. Quote them with the question 'Does this make any sense? '...' ' As for the vast swathes of tl;dr, ask if she can deconstruct, extract the essence of what the writer is saying.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 2:24 pmDeconstructing and engaging is a higher level of reading. Can you actually synthesise Eodnhodj's long posts into a short and pithy conclusion? i'd be quite interested to read that.
Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence
I use Chat a lot and find it very forgiving of imprecise questions . But would Chat actually accept Eodnhodge's screeds and screeds ,despite that may be well argued for all I know?