Void of Void; Absolute; Relative; Recursion

[Eodnhoj7]

Void of Void; Absolute; Relative; Recursion



1. The nature of void is that of void thus pure void is void of void.



The void of void reveals:



A. Absolute as a fixed point that does not change (there is nothing to change).



B. Relative as scale (x is void of y).



C. Absolute and relative (x is void of y absolutely always in context)



D. Neither absolute nor relative (the void of void is the void of distinctions of absolute and relative as pure distinction).



2. Void of Void is recursion; Recursion does not require an external observer as the void of x in y and the void within attention itself are but scales of the void that occur through void recursion (ie the void in attention and the void of what attention is place on is the recursion of void).



The difference of observer and observed is the limits of each, the limits of each are but the recursion of void as the limit itself, thus what remains is a void that transcends, mediates, underlies and is limit.



3. Void is pure potentiality, as the unactuality of actuality, thus the recursion of void is is the collapse of pure void, the void of void, the collapse of pure potentiality, the potentiality of potentiality, into being and actuality, correspondingly, by the distinction of each as recursion itself.



This recursion is limit for by recursion limit occurs; this is distinction.



4. Void is indistinct until recursion, potentiality is indistinct until recursion, as recursion is distinct by self contained self contrast;



Self-contained as void/potentiality is its own containment by repetition; ●● contains ● as ●●.



Self-contrast as void/potentiality is is own contrast by repetition; ●● contrasts ● as ●●.



Pure void/potentiality, ●, contains all scales of ●, as n● simultaneously until collapsed by the mediation of another scale, nn● by which n● occurs from ●. n● and nn● are recursive ● as distinction itself thus relegating any dichotomy of observer/observed and the corresponding dichtomies of



Abstract/Empirical

Presence/Absence

Absolute/Relative

Mind/Matter

Presence/Absence

Dualism/Non-Dualism

Moral/Immoral

True/False



....and any subsequent dichotomies

negated except through context of the emergent distinction of such dichtomy and the corresponding distinctions which follow from said dichotomies.

[Gary Childress]

A nutritious diet is likely to make you healthier than a junk food diet. So, are you going to eat a nutritious meal instead of junk food, or does a nutritious meal instead of junk food also = a not the case nutritious meal? You can't argue with reality, my friend. (A=A) =/= (not the case A = not the case A). Logic must conform to reality, not the other way around.

[Eodnhoj7]

A nutritious diet is likely to make you healthier than a junk food diet. So, are you going to eat a nutritious meal instead of junk food, or does a nutritious meal instead of junk food also = a not the case nutritious meal? You can't argue with reality, my friend. (A=A) =/= (not the case A = not the case A). Logic must conform to reality, not the other way around.

You claim logic must conform to reality and yet you require the identity of reality to be subject to the logic is logic is to have any reality...and you end in a tautological loop.

But if logic is to conform to reality, and not the otherwise around or neither, then by default you are claiming logic is not real if there is a boundary between it and reality....which by your own terms leaves you talking about unicorns.

But more to the point:

You claim "logic" and "reality" and yet are observing the primitive act of distinction itself as what is true thus what you consider as "logic/illogical" or "real/unreal" are merely asserted distinctions. The primitive of distinction scaling to such degrees is just a loop.

Kind of like the loop where you are obsessed with bringing A=/=A to thread outside the negation of identity laws thread.

[Gary Childress]

You claim "logic" and "reality" and yet are observing the primitive act of distinction itself as what is true thus what you consider as "logic/illogical" or "real/unreal" are merely asserted distinctions. The primitive of distinction scaling to such degrees is just a loop.

Are you making "asserted distinctions" right now? Is the idea that something is an "asserted distinction"--itself--an "asserted distinction"?

[Eodnhoj7]

You claim "logic" and "reality" and yet are observing the primitive act of distinction itself as what is true thus what you consider as "logic/illogical" or "real/unreal" are merely asserted distinctions. The primitive of distinction scaling to such degrees is just a loop.

Are you making "asserted distinctions" right now? Is the idea that something is an "asserted distinction"--itself--an "asserted distinction"?

Of course it an asserted distinction, and that asserted distinction is subject to the distinction of 'assertion' and the asserted distinction scales into new identities while retaining the old across various contexts.

But I am not the one claiming logic/illogical or real/unreal dichotomies, I simply observe distinctions. Distinctions which exist prior to what you claim.

You claim logic and reality but do so from the distinction of an assumption, and if you do not than you disagree with the logical and realistic schools who admit to such foundations.

I merely observe distinctions and that observation is an event of distinction.

So what is your point in all of this? Still crying because your logical loops, you base your identity on, are empty?

[Gary Childress]

You claim "logic" and "reality" and yet are observing the primitive act of distinction itself as what is true thus what you consider as "logic/illogical" or "real/unreal" are merely asserted distinctions. The primitive of distinction scaling to such degrees is just a loop.

Are you making "asserted distinctions" right now? Is the idea that something is an "asserted distinction"--itself--an "asserted distinction"?

Of course it an asserted distinction, and that asserted distinction is subject to the distinction of 'assertion' and the asserted distinction scales into new identities while retaining the old across various contexts.

I went ahead and pruned your answer of all the unnecessary banter.

Next question: An "asserted distinction" being an "asserted distinction": If it is, then are you using the law of identity to make that claim?

[Gary Childress]

But I am not the one claiming logic/illogical or real/unreal dichotomies, I simply observe distinctions.

If something is a "dichotomy," does that make it a "dichotomy" between "dichotomy" and "non-dichotomy"? Or how can the word "dichotomy" not itself produce a dichotomy in thinking? Or in other words, are you claiming a dichotomy/non-dichotomy "dichotomy"?

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you making "asserted distinctions" right now? Is the idea that something is an "asserted distinction"--itself--an "asserted distinction"?

Of course it an asserted distinction, and that asserted distinction is subject to the distinction of 'assertion' and the asserted distinction scales into new identities while retaining the old across various contexts.

I went ahead and pruned your answer of all the unnecessary banter.

Next question: An "asserted distinction" being an "asserted distinction": If it is, then are you using the law of identity to make that claim?

If that is the case you should have pruned your own conversation given what you claim are assumptions by the very axioms you defend....or do you not defend them?

But unnecessary by what context? You seem to be asserting a distinction thus using what you argue against.

[Gary Childress]

Of course it an asserted distinction, and that asserted distinction is subject to the distinction of 'assertion' and the asserted distinction scales into new identities while retaining the old across various contexts.

I went ahead and pruned your answer of all the unnecessary banter.

Next question: An "asserted distinction" being an "asserted distinction": If it is, then are you using the law of identity to make that claim?

If that is the case you should have pruned your own conversation given what you claim are assumptions by the very axioms you defend....or do you not defend them?

But unnecessary by what context? You seem to be asserting a distinction thus using what you argue against.

I'm not arguing against distinctions. I'm asking you if a distinction is a distinction according to the Law of Identity. Are you affirming the law of identity? Or are you saying that a distinction is also not a distinction?

[Eodnhoj7]

But I am not the one claiming logic/illogical or real/unreal dichotomies, I simply observe distinctions.

If something is a "dichotomy," does that make it a "dichotomy" between "dichotomy" and "non-dichotomy"? Or how can the word "dichotomy" not itself produce a dichotomy in thinking? Or in other words, are you claiming a dichotomy/non-dichotomy "dichotomy"?

No....but you are....you're not wrong, just not deep enough, that is the shallow layer.

The distinction of distinction is the indistinct by which distinction is distinct as distinction and indistinct is a scale of that distinction. A purely monadic process allows for dichotomies without being reducible to them as the scales of the primitive are but the primitive at scale.

But you are not bright, by your own standards so here is a visual:

Simple example; geometry.

A single 0d point is indistinct, there is nothing...void:
● =

The single 0d point contrasts against itself as two 0ds points, thus becomes distinct, what remains is the 0d point at scale thus it is its own context simultaneously; self contrast is self-containment as what contrasts reveals but itself as its own context. This is recursion as identity.

●●

The continuous recursion of the 0d point results in the scaling:

●●●
●●●●
●●●●●

Each scale is a fixed point to exists within other scales;

●●●●● contains ●●●●, ●●●, ●●
●●●● contains ●●●, ●●

and each fixed point in turn scales:

●● results in n●●
●●● results in n●●●
●●●● results in n●●●●

So scaling is bidirectional at minimum.

What remains is recursion, a cycle.

[Eodnhoj7]

I went ahead and pruned your answer of all the unnecessary banter.

Next question: An "asserted distinction" being an "asserted distinction": If it is, then are you using the law of identity to make that claim?

If that is the case you should have pruned your own conversation given what you claim are assumptions by the very axioms you defend....or do you not defend them?

But unnecessary by what context? You seem to be asserting a distinction thus using what you argue against.

I'm not arguing against distinctions. I'm asking you if a distinction is a distinction according to the Law of Identity. Are you affirming the law of identity? Or are you saying that a distinction is also not a distinction?

"Not a distinction" is a distinction. A "distinction" is a distinction. What remains is distinction as scale that allows dichotomies but are not limited to them.

[Gary Childress]

But I am not the one claiming logic/illogical or real/unreal dichotomies, I simply observe distinctions.

If something is a "dichotomy," does that make it a "dichotomy" between "dichotomy" and "non-dichotomy"? Or how can the word "dichotomy" not itself produce a dichotomy in thinking? Or in other words, are you claiming a dichotomy/non-dichotomy "dichotomy"?

No....but you are....you're not wrong, just not deep enough, that is the shallow layer.

Can you demonstrate that it is the "shallow layer" by quantifying how much "shallowness" the "layer" possesses? Or how does one make a distinction of a statement being "shallow"? Does one simply say, "That is shallow," and it is therefore "shallow"? Or is there some means by which you can rate "shallowness" in terms of which statements are more or less "shallow" than others? Or are all "shallow" statements equally "shallow" and all "deep" statements are equally "deep"? How does one determine "shallowness"?

[Eodnhoj7]

If something is a "dichotomy," does that make it a "dichotomy" between "dichotomy" and "non-dichotomy"? Or how can the word "dichotomy" not itself produce a dichotomy in thinking? Or in other words, are you claiming a dichotomy/non-dichotomy "dichotomy"?

No....but you are....you're not wrong, just not deep enough, that is the shallow layer.

Can you demonstrate that it is the "shallow layer" by quantifying how much "shallowness" the "layer" possesses? Or how does one make a distinction of a statement being "shallow"? Does one simply say, "That is shallow," and it is therefore "shallow"? Or is there some means by which you can rate "shallowness" in terms of which statements are more or less "shallow" than others? Or are all "shallow" statements equally "shallow" and all "deep" statements are equally "deep"? How does one determine "shallowness"?

Quantify and qualify? I just did, you erase what does not fit in your little box....so here it is again:

The distinction of distinction is the indistinct by which distinction is distinct as distinction and indistinct is a scale of that distinction. A purely monadic process allows for dichotomies without being reducible to them as the scales of the primitive are but the primitive at scale.

But you are not bright, by your own standards so here is a visual:

Simple example; geometry.

A single 0d point is indistinct, there is nothing...void:
● =

The single 0d point contrasts against itself as two 0ds points, thus becomes distinct, what remains is the 0d point at scale thus it is its own context simultaneously; self contrast is self-containment as what contrasts reveals but itself as its own context. This is recursion as identity.

●●

The continuous recursion of the 0d point results in the scaling:

●●●
●●●●
●●●●●

Each scale is a fixed point to exists within other scales;

●●●●● contains ●●●●, ●●●, ●●
●●●● contains ●●●, ●●

and each fixed point in turn scales:

●● results in n●●
●●● results in n●●●
●●●● results in n●●●●

So scaling is bidirectional at minimum.

What remains is recursion, a cycle.

[Gary Childress]

No....but you are....you're not wrong, just not deep enough, that is the shallow layer.

Can you demonstrate that it is the "shallow layer" by quantifying how much "shallowness" the "layer" possesses? Or how does one make a distinction of a statement being "shallow"? Does one simply say, "That is shallow," and it is therefore "shallow"? Or is there some means by which you can rate "shallowness" in terms of which statements are more or less "shallow" than others? Or are all "shallow" statements equally "shallow" and all "deep" statements are equally "deep"? How does one determine "shallowness"?

Quantify and qualify? I just did, you erase what does not fit in your little box....so here it is again:

The distinction of distinction is the indistinct by which distinction is distinct as distinction and indistinct is a scale of that distinction. A purely monadic process allows for dichotomies without being reducible to them as the scales of the primitive are but the primitive at scale.

But you are not bright, by your own standards so here is a visual:

Simple example; geometry.

A single 0d point is indistinct, there is nothing...void:
● =

How is a single point not a "distinct" point?

[Eodnhoj7]

Can you demonstrate that it is the "shallow layer" by quantifying how much "shallowness" the "layer" possesses? Or how does one make a distinction of a statement being "shallow"? Does one simply say, "That is shallow," and it is therefore "shallow"? Or is there some means by which you can rate "shallowness" in terms of which statements are more or less "shallow" than others? Or are all "shallow" statements equally "shallow" and all "deep" statements are equally "deep"? How does one determine "shallowness"?

Quantify and qualify? I just did, you erase what does not fit in your little box....so here it is again:

The distinction of distinction is the indistinct by which distinction is distinct as distinction and indistinct is a scale of that distinction. A purely monadic process allows for dichotomies without being reducible to them as the scales of the primitive are but the primitive at scale.

But you are not bright, by your own standards so here is a visual:

Simple example; geometry.

A single 0d point is indistinct, there is nothing...void:
● =

How is a single point not a "distinct" point?

Because you are comparing ● to all the points on your screen. Hence why I stated ● = .

So imagine a single point as this: pay attention to the act of your attention. That is a single point.