Systematic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:27 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:22 pm
Yes, you are absolutely correct about imperatives...or rather authority statements.
Take the fallacy of authority for example...this is an authority statement.
All philosophical argument, as an act of creation, is a statement of order where existence acts as it's own authoritative structure over the absence of being "void", by it's own nature. In these respects it takes on a Neitzchian expression of the will by form alone.
Platonic forms, observes the trillemic nature of all arguments, are inseparable from an irrational will with this irrationality being a synonym to "continuum" where all forms are irrational in the respect of this continuous nature is never fully define.
I may have to elaborate this point.
Order, including the forms, is arbitrary. But it seems better than chaos to have arbitrary order, arbitrarily fashioned to capacity. It's my opinion that capacity is better than incapacity. It's my opinion that it's rational. And it's my opinion that rationality is better than irrationality. If I be incorrect, then all who have obeyed will have wasted their own time. But destruction of capacity can be achieved using capacity. So it still seems the better wager to accomplish first. Certainly easier to eliminate than its opposite.
You are stuck with a dualism between rationality and irrationality, effectively making both intertwined and inseperable.
For example:
1+2=3 is a rational statement.
It is irrational as it can be applied to an infinite number of phenomena in one respect, in another respect 1+2=3 can be composed of or composes an infinite number of equations.
This "chaotic" indefinite nature requires some form of continuum.
1+2=3 may be applied to a continuum of qualities and thus as a continuum always requires a basic linear nature. It make be applied to oranges, or horses or the strictly just a repeated practice in time (first graders writing it down). In these respects it always is a linear projection within time if "localized" as its own abstract phenomenon. 1+2=3, as an applied perspective, exists through the linear flow of time as it is fundamentally repeated again and again and again.
This continuum, where the phenomenon exists (in this case the dynamic act of 1+2=3 being counted), effectively exists as "rational" or a "relation" of parts. A first grade class, every year, practices 1+2=3. This repeats every year (for example maybe in the first half of the year in september), so that 1+2=3 as a continuum, maintains a "rational" nature, of existing every september through the context of "practicing math". This continuum, repeated every september (as this september is a continuum) shows a continuum existing relative to another continuum, thus "rationality".
Rationality, or "a ratio", is strictly an observance of a relation of contexts...the "contexts" in this case being: september, practice, 1st grade, etc. These contexts always exist as continuums in and of themselves.
In these respects 1+2+3, as subject to context, always has some rational nature even when observing it as a continuum that is indefinite due to the progression of time.
The same applies for how many equations it "exists within" (or is composed of):
1x+2y=3z
where x, y and z are an infinite number of, pardon the pun, "numbers as equations":
Example
1(1)+2(4)=3(3)
1(3-2)+(9-5)=(4-1)
etc. for the progression of second equation as a continuum of infinitely subtracting numbers.
Thus chaos can alway be "known" as strictly a replication of fundamental contexts within context.