Why Existence requires Non-existence to Exist; The False Dichotomy of Flux and Stasis
For existence to come from existence there must be an absence of the relative existence, -X, coming from existence --X as if there is only --X then there is no space for -X thus by degree of there is only --X then -X cannot come from it by degree of -X there is nothingness by which X.1, X.2, X.3, etc can emerge, as degrees of -X, with degrees of --X effectively being -X given each gradation of X it its absence. In this context void is necessary for something to occur.
This can be seen in the simple of example for a tree to exist it requires the absence of the tree as the ground, the grass, etc. What a tree is is defined by what it is not, what it is not is a relative void as the tree itself. Thus void is conditional while still being void.
In these respects all degrees of --X require a -X, as degrees are the absence of --X and in this context -X, via X.1, X.2, X.3, etc., reveals that X can only occur by its absence in part and can only be distinct as --X by nature of the distinction of -X.
Dually if all that exists is --X, its absence of contrast reveals --X = -X as the absence of a distinct --X reveals the absence of the inverse distinction of -X.
This can be seen as the "Totality", which by nature of being the Totality has nothing beyond it thus no contrast, by absence of contrast it ceases to be distinct as the totality thus is nothing.
This further can be seen, quantitatively, under the assertion of 1 = 0, which is a contradiction in mathematical consensus but not a contradiction in the previously derive meta-rational argument.
This distinction is revealed as both "--" and "-" as a recursive function, a process of negation, where X is the focal form of the expression of "--" and "-".
This reveals the nature of existence and non-existence as neither flux nor stasis alone but rather both simultaneously as a pattern process. In this respect the traditional dichotomy of flux and stasis, argued over since the pre-socratics, where both them and corresponding schools favored primacy of one distinction over the other, is deemed a false dichotomy in the absolute sense and more of a relative axiom in another.
What remains is the event of distinction, via pattern as symmetry and symmetry via repeated limits. In this respect traditional heraclitian and parmenidian dichotomies cease and the corresponding platonic and aristotelian dichotomies cease.
What remains is less a question or assertion of fundamental being and non-being but the event of distinction that exists and mediates both and in this respect foundational paradigms, grounded on such assertions and questions, are revealed as merely localized points of attention by which to categorize the real and unreal.