Philosophy Now Forum

This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line:

(C)[[A-->]J]

It is in breaking down any definitive statement into a geometry where the rules become so general they can mean just about anything. Cycling back to the paradox of definition priorly stated, with the increase in definition in one respect comes the complete absence of it in another.



Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is.

If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation.

Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording.

Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not.

The same applies to any formal system of logic, it is contradictory by it's own nature of description but the formal system still exists. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.

The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic, and reality by default.

The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying centerpoint from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it. Any higher language would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing context again.

In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it.The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad as a symbol ⊙ with all grammar being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal.

From a perspective of temporality all movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality.

This applies to the foundation of logic as well.

Form is the glue of being derived from point space, all phenomenon are the expansion and contraction of a point with the point representing the height of pure form in one respect, pure formlessness in another. The point is the underlying median which holds reality together. Relative to logic this point is best represented through the "assumption" as a point of view.

The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

As to the formation of symbols:

1. One symbol inverts to another symbol and/or phenomenon; . ---> .
2. The symbol repeats; ._._._.
3. The symbol is a variable, ie means one and many things; ._._. = .__.

AEIOU, progresses from one symbol to another as evidenced by the sounds they make. AY, EE, IE, OE, YOO shows the inversion of one sound into another sound where each one observes a fluid type of movement changing into another fluid movement. One tone is flat and is following by a rising and falling of the tone.

The same occurs for progressive counting in Roman numbers:
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.

The origin of all symbols begins with a point: •

This point progresses to form the line: ----

From which curves are derived.

The origins of symbols progress from a single formless point to a flat or curved base both physically, as in the expression of the symbol itself, as well as the flat to rising and falling tones the symbol makes verbally.


Assumption = •
Continuum of assumptions = --->
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. •
2. • ---> •
3. •⊙•
4. (•)•
5. (• ---> •)• ---> (•⊙•)•
6. (• ---> •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•
7. ((•)•)•
8. (--->)•
9. ((--->)• ---> (--->)•)•
10. (⊙)•
11. ((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•
12. •

1. This is an assumption.

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption.

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself.

4. This is an assumption of assumption.

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

7. This is progressive assumption.

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed.

9. Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive.

10. This assumption of multiple progression is circular and is assumed.

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption.

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


In mapping logic at it most basic form, logic becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything, with this meaning being grounded in form alone.

This form, as variables by nature point to the paradox as to what a variable is and is not.


1. All assumptions are variables, as they represent general statements.

2. A cat is a variable, as it is composed of other types of cats. So is a tree. So is the word "word".

3. If I assume an experience I assume a generalized state of things (sensations, emotions, thoughts) that are composed of particulars that are not being observed. For example the experience of touching a table does not take into account how it was formed, the actual atomic movements or its place in the future...these assumptions are strictly images produced based upon the connection of prior experiences which are assumed.

4. All logical symbols, as such, act as variables. They are composed of other symbols and compose other symbols. They are generalities of transition, with each symbol as fundamentally empty being transitory to another symbol.

5. Each variable as a generality, is a particular which composes another generalized state, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. This necessitates it as a function of transition to another variable, thus all variables are inversive by nature.

For example, +1 is a generality. However it is a particular which composes +1+1=2, +1+2=3, +2+3=+5...etc. Thus it is a transitive state in itself considering it is always inverting from one state to another. +1 is always transitioning into more complex variations of itself, thus is continually inversive from one state to another.

6. Each variable as a particular, is a generality which exists in multiple states and is repeated, thus each variable is strictly is an inherent middle as underlying context of another context. This necessitates is as a form of transition to another variable, thus all variables are recursive by nature.

For example, +1 as a particular is a generality as it is composed of +10 - 9, +10.1 - 9,...etc. It is composed of an infinite number of particulars and as such is an underlying form of many transitive states. +1 is always present as an underlying form of continuity as a general state due to its repetition.

7. All assumptions as both form and functions are inherently variables that necessitate an underlying order that manifests spontaneously and as random through a continual variation of the same thing. Logic is spontaneous as it is grounded in assumptions.

Statements such as A=A or 1+1=2 are fundamentally random, but are ordered as self referencing contexts through recurssion.

A=A can mean anything, with "A" = "Anything" necessitating all phenomena are subject to equivocation....

....while 1+1=2 being the quantity of any phenomena such as a dot, to a horse, to oranges, to the number of words in a sentence.

8. Logic and math are thus always indefinite and definite at the same time as all variables are simultaneously generals and particulates. This same nature applies to philosophy where any answer is best defined "as is".


It is the nature of the dualism between general and particulate, vagueness and clarity, where philosophy's "as is-ness", expressed through the tautology, where the geometric mapping of tautologies as linear strings undergo a deeper meta circularity

The analysis of a phenomenon is the breaking down of the phenomenon into different parts. Each set of parts is a variation of the original part from which it is broken down.

One phenomenon changes into another phenomenon until a series of interconnected phenomenon occur.

This series of phenomenon, in itself, is a string due to linear progression.

This string is a phenomenon as well, thus resulting in the variables which compose the string as a variable in itself.

One variable changes into a series of variables which in turn again act as a variable:

A
(A --> B)
(A --> B) = A1

This new variable follows the same form, as the original variable, and changes into another variable string:

A1
(A1 --> A2)

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

(A1 --> A2) = A1a

A1a
(A1a --> A1b)
(A1a --> A1b) = A1aa

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

One variable breaks down to many and the many exist under one. This in itself becomes a string:

(A --> A1aa)

Or a new variable:

AA1

depending on the degree to which analysis is stopped. Analysis, as string creation, is then subject to the observer's choice resulting in knowledge always having an inherent element of randomness.

Dually all progressive tautologies result in a variable that represents the tautology itself, for example:

A results in B with B being a recursion of A.

(A-->A)-->B

B results in C, with C being a recurssion of A through B:
(A--> B)-->C

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

As the variable progresses so does the string. A as self referencing through an infinite recursion result in the string progressing simultaneously to
A as it progresses to a new variable: (((A-->A) --> B) --> C) ---> ....) ---> A

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

A progressive string is a progress to the underlying variable which forms it:
(((A--> (A-->A)) ---> (A-->A-->A))...) --->A



This looping between the variable of the tautology and the tautology as a variable summate philosophy as purely context manipulation where philosophy itself is a context, amidst the science/religions and philosophies best represented as "(A)" in reference to the primary equations presented earlier. Under these terms, all variables as contexts are center points for all variables.

The ability to predict a phenomena is grounded in the variables observed. There is no set formalization for which to determine which variables are observed and which are not observed. Variable observance is subject to an infinite regress where for every variable observed, there are variables not observed which lie beyond it.


All contexts as the centerpoint for further contexts necessitate all contexts as equivocating to another context through an underlying context. These are meta contexts, through recursion (assumptive law of inherent middle), that underlie all other contexts.

Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation of seemingly unequal numbers.

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )


B) 1=2
(1(0)) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
(0(0)) = 1( )1( )




C) 2=3
((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )


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

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


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

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

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

d2) 2=4
((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

Again, a number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them as the summation of these contexts. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context.

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise, the framework is always right and wrong given context.

Another example:

The sun and moon are both equal through having color and round shapes. "Color" and "shape" are inherently middle contexts that allow one context to equate to another.

The sun and moon are unequal as having different colors and different surfaces to the shapes. While "color" and "shape" is an inherent middle context, that both "Sun" and "Moon" have in common, this middle context is fundamentally empty as it diverges into different colors and shapes. These contexts, as fundamentally void of definition inverts into different contrasting contexts resulting in a definition of this middle term.


The sun and moon are simultaneously equal and unequal as the contexts through which they align necessitates an equivocation of certain phenomena and lack of equality in another.

Another example from a seperate angle observes the truth value changing in response to a change in context:

1. (Einstein is alive) =T/F
2. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century as an idea) = T but potential F
3. (Einstein is alive in the 21st century) = F but potential T


Numbers 2 and 3 are also simultaneously true and false given a larger context. For a truth value to change all one has to do is change the context, thus truth value always requires a potential truth value as well.

The general state of contexts, as being simultaneously true and false given another context, necessitate proof in alignment of contexts alone where falsifiability is not necessarily the primary determinate of truth.

A third example:

A unicorn exists = T/F
A unicorn exists as a dream = T
A unicorn exists as an empirical biological entity = F

"A unicorn exists" can always be either justified or falsified dependent upon the context it is represented through. "A unicorn exists" is true when it reflects under the context of "dream".

Both the "unicorn" and the "dream" share a symmetry through "imagination" which acts as an underlying context both "unicorn" and "dream" exist through. Imagination is A Superpositioned Context.

Both the "unicorn" and the "biological entity" have an absence of symmetry through the context of "empiricality" which is a context that does not underlie both "unicorn" and "biological entity" but only "biological entity". "Empiricality" is underlying context which "unicorn" and "biological entity" do not share, thus an absence of symmetry as an absence of shared context is observed. Unicorns Are Not Empirical.


Truth And Falsifiability Change According To The Context Presented, Thus "A Unicorn Exists" Is Both True And False.

What we deem as true is determined by the repeatability of the event within a given context. The expansion of the context in turn changes the measure in which a phenomenon is repeated. It is this repeatability through the expansion and contraction of context which gives a necessary prerequisite to context as determining truth and false values.

All events are falsifiable, or justifiable, given the appropriate context. Thus empirical testing is not necessarily the sole means of justifying a phenomenon as the context from which truth value is derived is subject to a non empirical means of determining the context itself.

It is the absence of empiricality, in determining context, that necessitates all empirical truths being grounded within a prerequisite abstraction that stands above the empirical senses itself. For example the testing of a rat's diet within the contexts of A and B events may as well be empirical in the test itself but what determines which context is applied is based upon an abstraction.

Under these terms all empirical testing is subject to a descriptive process of reasoning where phenomenon are defined in accord to abstractions. Part of this abstraction is the consensus of which abstraction to apply, with this not being subject to any empirical laws but rather group agreement. In simpler terms the test applied to measure a phenomenon are not limited to empirical knowledge but rather a group subjective agreement as to which empirical test the phenomena is subject to.

Thus in the quest of justifiability, all scientific and philosophical truths are derived from a group agreement in test ability, as any test can be applied to any phenomenon thus leading to any set of results within a given scientific or philosophical experiment.

What is derived through the process of experimentation is the application of context, with the summation of "everything" as "reality itself" being unable to be tested considering the summation of experience must be aligned within a given outside context thus causing a disjunction between "everything" and "test for everything". Testability, as context application, suffers an infinite regress as what can be tested will always have a test beyond it necessary to justify the former context.

The summation of reality alone, as "everything", will always have the test/context itself as a subset thus leading to a circularity: The test is needed to justify reality, but the test must be "real" in order for the test to be valid, this reality to the test is unjustifiable without going into a circularity.


All contexts are true, as existing, and the alignment with other contexts necessitates this truth value as grounded in degrees of interpretation given the very nature of existence itself is a premeditated truth value that underlies all contexts.

Falsifiability thus lends itself to a manifestation of degrees along a continuum, where all contexts as continuums derive truth value from alignment with further continuums.

What we deem as false is a misalignment between contexts, yet this misalignment necessitates each context is self referentially true by the fact they are degrees of existence. It is in manifestation of degrees, where each context as a continuum is part of another context as a continuum, that necessitates existence as a relation of parts which form a whole.

This whole is the summation of interlinked parts with this interlocking of truths determining which have truth value and which do not. Truth is thus premised in the connection between contexts with any absence of connection, as an absence of symmetry between parts, being the sole determinate of what we deem as falsifiable.

In shorter terms, falsifiability is an absence of connection between contexts as an absence of symmetry. Symmetry acts as the sole unifier by reflecting certain common bonds which exist across contexts. Symmetry is a connection across contexts as a superpositioned context that exists in multiple contexts at the same time.


All assertions, existing as relative to the observer, necessitate each assertion as having multiple angles of interpretation thus necessitating each assertion as having multiple levels of meaning.

The phrase: "Nothing exists" can be translated at minimum as:

1. Absence of "thingness" exists.
2. There is no existence.
3. Existence is not limited to "things".
4. Existence is limited to "things".

All of which are correct statements, given the appropriate context. Therefore each statement is layered with potential meanings and context is always necessitated by an expansion to further context. What we understand of an assertion, which exists as a self referential context under it's own terms due to (P=P), is decided by the contexts which are derived from it potentially. Each assertion, as a context through the law of identity, under it's own terms is a self referential loop.

It is the inherent identity processes of the assertion as self referential, due to (P=P) as its identity property, which also necessitates each context as inherently empty in and of itself. As empty all contexts are a means of change into a newer context.

The context as actual is dependent solely on the potential contexts which are derived from it, therefore in the relation of actuality and potentiality the assertion is determined retrocausally in a manner where what the assertion may mean exists as defining the context for what it is.

The potential is linked towards the actual in such a way that meaning is determined by future contexts in a manner where the assertion, as a context, is linked across time and becomes transfinite. Meaning exists in a larger finite state compared to its original finite assertion.

The actual state of a phenomenon variates into further actual states through its potential state. The actual state is one of form, the potential state is one of formlessness. The formless potential state of a phenomenon acts as a means of inversion from one actual state into that of another. The form is negated by what is formless, this negation of the actual is the change which manifests the actual into further actuals.

For example, a singular piece of wood exists. This piece of wood is cut. The actual state of the wood is divided through the formlessness of the cut resulting in multiple pieces of wood. The wood as an actual changes into multiple actuals through the formless nature of the cut. The cut is the potential change of the wood into further actuals.

This negation of the actual results in the division of the actual into another manner of existence through a potentiality which manifests as formlessness. Formlessness is the means of change of one state into another. It is the synthesis of the actual and potential that allows the actual to be a dynamic state of progression where actuality manifests as a continuum.

This dualism between the actual and potential reflects a state of synthesis through context, where the context as actual is changed through a potential formlessness.


Everything reduced to context, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. Context is true as existing self referentially, it is false as open to expansion. Definition takes on the nature of rings within rings.

To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts, certain rings must align with other rings. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing. The context as having any secondary nature to truth is in itself a context, thus what we understand of context is the inversion of one context to another, causing one context is exist recursively through another.

1. All contexts are center points to further contexts.
2. All contexts are empty in themselves yet exist through further contexts.
3. All contexts are instrincially empty loops which exist through further loops.

Being exists through cycles which allows for a context to both be a center point to a further context while intrinsically empty.


What is absolute is 1 underlying absolute cycle, which is approximated through many cycles. Absolute truth is approximated through relative truth.


For example, a series of monads exists. There is no one monad at first glance but many. However each monad is the same form with their summation resulting in many different forms. Each monad exists through the same shape, thus even though there are many monads, technically it is the same form repeated again and again. One form is approximated through many forms, so while there are many monad it is actually the same one in different forms. Unity is approximated through multiplicity.

Relativity and absolute truth both exist simultaneously.


When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.

Pure geometric forms underleye all abstract and empirical being as being in itself is form which exists "as is". What we understand of reality is a series of forms which expand and contract from a single point.

In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle expressed through a spiral.

Form is constant.

1. There is no same context twice as all contexts are changing.

***There is no same physical object (river, tree, snowflake) or abstraction (thought, emotion).

2. This continual change of one context to another is a revolution of context as a context thus each context is seperate from another context by a context.

***The river may change into land, water into land, one though into another, etc. through an intrinsically empty limit.

I may see water seperate from land by a distinct curvature which is instrincially empty. A glass half of water and half of air shows a distinct boundary separating them, as well as both from the glass, with this boundary being curvature.

The same applies for any progressive series of thoughts or emotions, one is separated through another by an inherent "emptiness" or lack of memory where each thought and emotion as intrinsically empty on it's own terms separates other thoughts and memories.

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

Turning, as change, is inversion. One direction of movement changing to another direction of movement is inversion...all phenomenon exist through direction as this direction necessitates movement.

This applies to a tree directed through time as changing, all the way to this simple sentence being read as the progression of one symbol to another.

4. Curvature is the inversion of one phenomenon into another, with this formlessness existing as a boundary of both phenomenon. The line which separates both the air and water in a glass is the same line which maintains their distinct natures.

These distinct natures, bound by the intrinsically empty curvature that contains them, are empty into there own natures where the curvature is the perpetual loop which forms them as a context or localization of reality.

5. This intrinsic emptiness of both the curvature that defines the phenomena and the phenomena itself through the loop that exists because of the curvature observes this "voidness" voiding itself into the phenomena.

6. This phenomena, as the voiding of void, is further voided through void into further phenomena constantly. Thus each quality exists intrinsically by inherently empty curvature as intrinsically empty curvature and this repitition of void, by void voiding itself by nature as it is "nothing", through further phenomenon further necessitates all phenomena as a perpetual middle.

7. Each phenomena, as inherently empty curvature, is thus a contextual loop with curvature as a contextual loop being a variable that equivocates to any and everything. Each context is thus a form through repetition and formless through its "turning" or "inversive" nature. Thus curvature as contextual looping is a variable. All phenomena are variables as both form (constant such as "river" or "x") and function ("river" and "x" equivocate to infinite phenomenon).

8. All phenomena as curvature through contextual looping, are thus images or "imaginary". They are strictly negative dimensions that observe the connection of phenomenon and are intrinsically neither existing nor not existing but fundamentally both.

It is this nature of phenomena existing through definition as curvature which necessitates being as taking on a nature of language itself given that language is a series of symbols which define further symbols with each symbol existing fundamentally as a form. Language is symbols, and symbols are forms, thus stepping back and taking a broader perspective of language it is a series of forms. Reality, as forms, and language, as forms, necessitates reality as it's own language when looked at from a distance. Both reality and language are mediated through forms.

In these respects language occurs through a given form and a given form alone as the progression of one context to another.. It is this form that determines the truth value of language thus breaking language into a dichotomy of dialectic and rhetoric.

According to the common definitions:

Rhetoric is "persuasive speach".

Dialectic is "sorting truth from opinion".

Truth is what persuades the justifiability of any and all opinion, and as such it is rhetorical in nature as the interplay of opinions sets the necessary definition to what something is and is not.

This tension of "being" and "nonbeing" resulting in definition is the persuasive power of any and all truth and as such necessitates dialog as an exhibition of force.

This force simply is form, this form being a continuum we call quality where any and all truth is irrational until it is divided into parts. This division, while a continuum in itself, into parts is the tautology that lends itself into an inherent circularity where one proposition is observed through many.

Philosophy is thus grounded into who can make the most impenetrable sphere of reasoning on any given point, yet fails to admit to this geometric origin as the sole underlying factor that determines its success or failure.

Dialect in its continual atomism not just negates itself under a perpetual manner of "assuming through division", but it effectively leads to the very multiplication of problems and languages its seeks to avoid. It is contradictory by nature with contradiction reflecting a basic seperation or tension of propositions.

Even the standard dialect, embodied through debate, never results in a form of agreement between parties but rather a creation of further tautologies that justify each parties stance. Under these terms it merely acts as a form of self-persuasion and the creation of a logical sphere allowing further dialect to bounce off any given stance when reinforced well enough by its recurssion of tautologies... or recursion if recursion.

In these respects the nature of Rhetoric, as persuasive, gains its groundings in a form of hypnotism where the same thing is repeated again and again from different angles. This hypnosis, through repitition, is the nature of truth itself where what is deemed true is observed as such if it is persuasive.

Dialectic is thus a self negating universal "or" function of the psyche, continually dividing assumptions until rhetoric is given form by uniting this chaotic mess much in the same manner a religious ritual gives rise to unity in ths psyche or between groups.

Rhetoric is thus a process of binding, with its persuasive quality being grounded in the simple presentation of a form. This form, persuasive by nature due to its self referential quality, acts as a filter through which one percieved the world and a such negates the dialectic as having any coherent value in and of itself other than a strict creation of perpetual fallacies that even it falls into.

The grounds of philosophy, and knowledge through language, is in "assumption".

This assumption, as without thought or form, is void and akin to an intellectual vaccuum. What is assumed is taken without thought. You heard me state this before...nothing new.

The dialectic and rhetoric, which revolves around these key assumptions, does in fact revolve like a spiral around these key assumptions in an effort not to elaborate and clarify them...but rather contain them and hide them.

Any progressive definition, negates the old, causing not just empty terminology but effectively a morphing of language into a vortex in form and function.

This also occurs, specifically speaking the "nihilistic tendencies", with the spiral nature of the scientific method where the emphasis on "facts" that are continually negated for new facts effectively leaves knowledge itself as meaningless.

It is the redefinition of language, through continual dialectic and rhetoric, that results in the very language trying to contain its hidden baseless nature as fundamentally causing it.

Philosophy, specifically the modern post presocratic sense, is story creation. Whoever gives the greatest degree of definition creates a story. This story is embodied within the psyche, forming and guiding perspective, and takes on a God complex.

We equate brilliance with definition for definition sparkles, much like the stars in the night sky. But underneath these definitions, between the lines, is an isomorphism of formlessness.

The greater the definition the greater the philosopher. With the increase in definitions comes an increase in interpretations. Thus philosophers such as kant or neitzche are "great" not because of the great degree of detail, but because this great degree of detail allows for a variety of interpretations that can equivocate to anything.

They are great because when we see them we see "us", and this mirror results in the narcissus myth hidden behind the nature of much of logic and reason.

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


In these respects philosophy takes on a ritualistic nature of creating symbols, with these symbols being gods as they direct the psyche. Symbolism, is god creation. Definition, or rather story telling, is the worship of these gods.

This symbol creation is the creation of analogies.

Analogies are phenomena.

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

This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

All phenomenon, including analogies, lead to further phenomenon.

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

This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum. Why? Because phenomenon are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself.

Intelligence is subject to infinite grades. One can have no "skill" in math or language, but possess the skill to create a sculpture out of "x" random material, or to manipulate other's in converations (or dually be empathetic), with each of these respective skills having degrees of "intelligence" as subsets (ie one may be a genius with metal, but not plastic or one may be skilled with certain personalities, but not other's).

The best proof of intelligence is creativity, the ability to take "nothing" and invert it into "something".

This is the origin of the word "genius": "gen"

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


This deals within an innate archetype of the psyche: Dualism embodied through the tension between light and darkness, where "darkness" is akin to a formless mass of "knowledge" (embodied by a problem which inherently is a mass of information that maintains no connection) that is inverted into a form through the "light of reason" acting as a divisor.

This is akin to volume (form) dividing mass (formlessness) to result in density (form/formless dualism), using an analogy of physics.

Or "="(form) dividing 0 (formless) into 0=0 (form/formless dualism) where "=" represents the first function and symbol of "1" intuitively, using an analogy of math and basic Aristotelian identity logic.
***This is considering 1 gains its identity as 1 through "=" which can be observed under the law of identity as "0=0" giving premise to the first symbol of "=" as a prerequisite to not just "1" but also basic geometry lines between points "⇄ as ↔" at the intuitive level.

Or a 1 dimensional line (form) dividing 0d space (formlessness) to result in further lines (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of geometry.

Or a a phallus (form) dividing a yani (formlessness) to result in further organisms (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of sex/reproduction.
***sperm (linear form) and egg (emptiness) also suffice.

Or a general of an army (Intelligence as "formation" of definition) dividing a mass of troops (formlessness as absent of unity or order) to result in further units (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of military.

Or a generator (of any source material or computer) (form) dividing a mass of material or energy (formlessness) into further units of material/energy (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of engineering.

Or geniality as "manners" (social ritual)(form) dividing a mass of unformed behavior (base instincts) into further degrees of inherent societal norms as a containment of base instincts (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of basic social behavior.

Or generalization (form) of abstract or material particulars (formless) into further degrees of inherent categories/types (form/formless) as a containment of knowledge and experience using an analogy of intellectual and intuitive reasoning.

Or particulars as "context" (form) of abstract or material generals (formless) into further degrees of inherent contexts (form/formless) as a containment of knowledge and experience using an analogy of intellectual and intuitive reasoning.

Or paradox (form) as the synthesis through the unifying of contradiction (formlessness through dualism) into further degrees of pardox/contradiction) as a dynamic synthesis using an analogy of "absurdity".

Or "static" (form) as the inversion of dynamic change (formless) into a continuum.

And "and" as the unity (form) of all "or"s (formlessness through dualism)....within the "language of being" through:

"Abstraction" (form) as the unity of "materiality" (formlessness as change) through:

"True" (form) as the negation of "Falsity" through "Falsity".

But most of all: "Genesis" where "light" as an empirical or abstract entity (forms) divides "darkness" (the void of being) through "darkness into "being" (form/formlessness) as a containment of "chaos" using an analogy of various creation myths.

"All" (form) encapsulates "Nothing" through "Nothing" by the opposition of void through void necessitated by "All" alone.

"Definitions" are gods.

This may seem obscure at first.

When we defined something, we encapsulate it into something we can relate to. This definition in turn acts a guiding measure for our lives, much like a god. We see this with basic prayers or mantras to a lesser God, where some element is the pscyhe the god represents is viewed as an entity in itself.

So a person praying to the God of war, is actually meditating on the nature of war and embodying these patterns (courage, intelligence, etc.). These patterns, when anthropormized, are Gods. These Gods are the mythos or stories of interplaying aspects of the psyche.

The pattern, when not viewed as anthropomorphized, are the logos or "word", "plan". This at its core is just symbolism. Words are symbols, symbols are patterns. Plans are definitions through words, thus patterns as well. So when worshipping the "God of War" the pscyhe assumes patterns and integrates them.

A basic pattern under this would be just "divergence" or the ability to take one thing and reduce it to multiple states. We see this in war, it is taking one side and reducing it to parts. Thus we seek how a God of War may have as sibling the God of Wisdom or "analysis" considering this same process of divergence manifests itself in a variety of manners.

Thus these stories, or definitions of reality, are created Gods we worship by assuming there basic behavior and losing oneself to this behavior. This loss of self to the "god" is an act of sacrifice, and in a simpler agrarian culture where one worked and was paid in food, the sacrifice of food was a sacrifice of a part of there inherent identity in these simpler times.

They are reaching deep into the subconsciousness and pulling out basic archetypal patterns and embodying them by sacrifice.

Stories are gods and gods are stories. They are worshiped or "praised" when they are told.


Philosophy is rule creation, rules are means of defining an entity, philosophy is definition creation.
The funny thing about philosophy is if you break the rules it still exists as philosophy.

This breaking of rules and creation of new rules is reflected within the equivocation of one context to an entirely new context that determines how reality is interpreted.

This is reflected again in the nature of story telling as a process of definition which is akin to "philosophy".

Stories are a series of words which form the abstractions necessary to direct the human condition to a higher state. These stories, as words, are repeated as a series of mantras that give a lasting image through which humanity is formed. A story is repeated and this repeated story forms the unactualized subconscious into a conscious state where man becomes that which is repeated.

It is through the use of analogy and metaphor in which a story is formed. These analogies and metaphors tie together seemingly seperate phenomena into a common goal of working together to produce a different state of consciousness.

For example the parable, a story, of the difficulty a rich man's ability to reach salvation being equivalent to a "camel passing through the eye of a needle" represents the tying together of seemingly different qualities, such as "camel" and "needle" under a message of "difficulty". One set of images relates to another resulting in the abstract tying together of phenomenon to form an image beyond the qualities themselves. It is this image creation, through which mankind operates, that guides the forming of the subconscious into a new state.

The analogous comparison of phenomenon to machines necessitates an inherent zietgeist of domination between classes. The machine, specifically the robot, is determined by an inherent input/output of commands through which a phenomenon responds according to the orders given. It is this inout/output of orders which necessitates an inherent subservience of the robot as equivalent to a slave.

With the analogy of comparing a phenomenon to a machine/robot, be it nature or man, comes an inherent subconscious approach to viewing reality as subservient to another class of being. One class of being actualized and another is left in an unactualized state supporting the efforts of those actualizing. This subservience reflects an inherent zietgeist of dominance between beings where phenomena are less viewed as working together for a common good to a dialogue between master and servant.

This master/slave dialectic is rooted in the nature of computation, with computation being rooted in a basic input/output mode of being equivalent to a process of giving and taking orders. The analogous approach of comparing phenomenon to "systems" is an analogous approach to a master/slave dialectic which promotes an intrinsic seperation between phenomenon as that which rules and that which is ruled. This further reflects a class distinction that promote inequality and an opposing dualistic tension between beings. This inequality is the expression of the inability for all being to reach a fully individualized mode of being at the expense of another group.

This artificial tension, created through the idolization of physical phenomenon through pragmaticism, results in an inherent slave state where the ability to carve reality into forms (much in the same manner physical being is formed and reformed into technology) reflects the promotion of an upper and lower class rooted in the pursuit of luxury for one and the act of perpetual serfdom for another.

Technology is the idolization of luxury, a freedom from working together with being, in an effort to create a ruling class and a series of automatons that subject their own nature to that of pleasing the whims of an upper class. This artificially created dichotomy represents a deeper underlying theme of struggle between the classes where technology reflects an increasing dehumanization of human work in an effort to created a slave state where commands are given and received without question. This absence of question is an absence of the degree of freedom necessary for individuation to occur in a manner where being is able to reach a higher state. The inability to question is the inability to "know" an higher source through the form of dialectic.

It is the continual analogies of being to "systems", "machines" or "robots", which reflect a class struggle with this root being "watered" under the term of "computation". "Computation" is another word for "orders" with these orders being followed without question at the expense of freedom of being.

"Computation", as "orders", is thus another means of defining reality through a process of story telling where the original nature of the story, as a means of guiding human behavior into a higher state, is replaced to a theme of serfdom. These stories are rooted in creating a series of forms, much in the same manner as a program, meant to guide human behavior. Computation thus becomes a new "god" as the "god" is a series of words, through stories, which act as repeated mantras which direct the human capacity to act. With the change of interpreting reality to one of "input/output" is a change of the human condition to one of a sole pursuit of baser instincts through the a "god" called luxury.

The analogies of being operating as "systems", grounded in "computation", which reflects a paradigm shift in how reality is interpretted under a series of gods that equate themselves to stories that guide the human condition.

This guiding of the human condition, through the story, necessitates all definitions as extensions of the human condition itself. All arguments, stemming from the point of the observer, necessitate an inherent ad hoministic nature. Each argument is a projection of the observer thus to negate the argument is to negate the perspective of the individual through whom the argument is formulated.

This is the reason why many take any refutation of their point of view as personal. All arguments, as a reflection of a subjective "I" nature, are variations of the "I" as an interpretation of the "I" itself. Argumentation is definition of the "I" through a dynamic interplay between other "I"s that results in definition of the "I".

There is no argument seperate from the observer as the assertion deemed seperate from the observer is in itself observed as unobservable. A contradiction entails from this. Projection necessitates it as an extension of the observer thus real as the observer is real.

All arguments, as extensions of the observer, are authoritative by their assertive nature. The projection of an angle of awareness necessitates the argument's authority in the respect the observer is the origin point of the assertion presented.

The assertion is thus a projection of a singular point of awareness which encapsulates the subjective angle of the observer and manifests it as an objective entity. The authoritative nature of the argument is thus grounded in the authority of the subjective angle as a particular means of expressing one degree of a multifaceted phenomenon.

Authority is individuation of assertion as a particular angle of awareness where the angulature of the percieved phenomenon acts as a singular reference point that reflects an apex in understanding. This authority, through angulature, references the multi-grade nature of any given assertion thus necessitating truth as multidimensional with multiple authorities of any subject as approximations of one single subject.

The subject alone necessitates it as one unique, hence authoritative, nature which grounds itself as one authority existing through many. The question of authority, as a question of individuation, necessitates assertion as "existence alone" where the said authority derives its own nature by existence.

Existence is authority and existence is multidimensional thus deriving the nature of individuation as one meaning superimposed through many meanings. Authority thus represents itself through grades where the highest authority is that which is closest to the center point of many meanings.



The truth/false dichotomy is a false dichotomy given the expression of contexts reflect truth values to have multiple grades of meaning. All contexts are derive a truth/false value given the contexts through which they are presented.

For example "a unicorn exists" maintains a simultaneous true and false value. It maintains a true value under the context of "dream entity" and a false value under the context of "empirical entity". The dichotomy is presented through the context in which the truth value is expressed, but considering this context is always one to further expansion so the truth/false value follows the same nature.

All contexts are thus simultaneously true/false with this necessitating an either/or expression of truth as being a false dichotomy. This false dichotomy is the necessitates by an inherent middle term given within all assertions.

All arguments are equivocative through a middle term as context derives its meaning through another context which acts as a connection. This connection occurs through a regression of terms which reflects equivocation occuring through an infinite regress. Using the example of a "unicorn", again, the "unicorn" connects or disconnects to the context of "existence" through a medial term of "dream entity" or "empirical entity". These medial contexts reflect through a regression of some form where:

Unicorn --> Horse with Horn --> Dream Entity --> Existence

Unicorn --> Horse with Horn --> Empirical Entity --> Non Existence

This regression of terms, in which one context through its inversion into another context equivocates to a nee context through a tautology, observes defintion as grounded in a series of strings where one phenomenon, as having multiple definitions, does so through a series of strings. This string nature to definition further necessitates equivocation as existing through a regress where the the fallacy of equivocation not only exists through the fallacy of slippery slope, but both fallacies negate eachother into prerequisite truth values that determine the definition of any given phenomenon.

Equivocation occurs through regress and regress occurs through the tautological progression where one context acts as a mediator to another.

Knowledge possesses a degree of self negation through the nature of categorization where one category eventually replaces another. For example Pluto was once deemed as a Planet, then it regressed to "Not Planet".

All knowledge, as categorical, is subject to change in which definition is a process of individuation where one phenomenon is singularized into a set of relations. This set of relations, as the phenomenon, is the apex of a series of parts that underlie all parts.

One phenomena, as underlying many, is the summation of a variety of parts where a common bond stretches across many phenomenon. This common bond results in knowledge as categorical where the category is a process of change as a summation of parts. Knowledge as singularizing is knowledge as changing.

This categorical nature of phenomena necessitates the act of reflection as pivotal in identity formation. Reason requires a process of self reflection where a previously subjective state is magnified into an objective one. This objectivity is pattern formation. The subjective state, that of personal experience, is repeated through force of habit resulting in the identity of the observer through the manifestation of a series of actions.

For example in reflecting upon a series of actions, such as an exercise routine, this routine is repeated in the intellect until it manifests itself as the exercise routine itself. Reflection is the giving of structure to the intellect where some fleeting thought repeats itself until it becomes part of the identity of the observer.

Reflection is analytical as well, as the breaking down of experience into a new one. For example a bad habit, such as smoking, is a series of experiences which are imprinted upon the intellect. This pattern is broken down, into its root causes such as smoking induced anxiety, into a new pattern where the old pattern is negated, that of not smoking.

The act of reflection is thus a formation of patterns through a repitition of thought and the inversion of one set of thoughts into another. Reflection is thus two fold. It converges repeated thoughts into a series of actions; dually it diverges repeated thoughts into a series of actions. Reflection thus is the manifestation of a series of actions that exist as extensions of thought as the ingraining of thought. The ingraining of thought is the self assuming of patterns.

The I exists through a series of repeated loops.

The first loop is that where the self is directed away from itself through an exterior experience which imprints itself on the I. An example of this would be the watching of an exercise program and having this program, as knowledge, imprint itself on the psyche.

The second loop is that where the self, as imprinted, is directed in towards itself in manner where the exterior imprints are broken down into further imprints which are then reformed into a new sense of self. An example of this would be the reflection of the imprinted expercise programs and the incorporation of it into the psyche as in inherent part of the psyche. In reflecting upon the imprint of the program comes an self imprinting of it through repitition.

The third loop is the alternation between the exterior and interior imprints. An example of this would be the imprinting of the program on the psyche, the breaking down of the pattern into a new series of patterns which are repeated in the psyche, further exterior imprinting followed by further interior imprinting.

Reflection thus takes the nature of a trifold cycle which manifests an identity of the self through a series of patterns.

This root of reflection is founded in solitude and silence, where the patterns which form the identity express themselves without distraction. This distraction is the division of awareness. Division of awareness is the division of the sense of I. Division of the sense of I is the direction of the I away from itself towards an exterior experience alone, or the direction of the I only towards itself through self absorption. It is the act of reflection of the I which forms a series of loops as repeated actions and thought which determine the identity of the I.

As extensions of consciousness, which is real, all phenomena are real in and of themselves as extensions of that said conciousness. All phenomena used for measurement (ie "points", "lines" and "circles") are real through the consciousness. As extensions of the consciousness all measurements, as the application of boundaries, is real.

OMG!

Get a blog.

Pg 3 ---- It is the reality of a phenomena, through consciousness, which necessitates all being as reduced to forms. Form is being, and this being is grounded in space. Space is self evident as is and reflects the basic nature of the subconsciousness as being fundamentally formless.

Pg 3 ---- Philosophy cannot be reduced to general principles without these general principles being responsible for themselves under a circularity.

This avoidance of circularity is a detriment to philosophy as it is an underlying core to its assertions.

The avoidance of this circularity is the avoidance of the nature of philosophy as being strict assertions.

Philosophy is assertive by nature with this assertiveness being the assertion itself.

A proposition is stated and assumed as having a truth value, when in all actuality this truth value is grounded in the "as isness" where truth comes from existence alone.

All assertions are true as existing, the "principle" as a mode of stating something exists is a statement of something existing in a certain manner with the principle derived from existence as existence.

Any general principle presented through philosophical discourse necessitates the principle being an assertion, nothing more or less.

The assertion exists precisely because the assertion exists, thus being exists because being exists.

This assertion is the localization of one phenomenon out of many, with there being an absence of principle in determining which assertion precedes another.

The beginning assertion exists as a projection of the observer, thus what decides which assertion is not only chosen but precedes another assertion is the dialectic.

This dialectic is grounded in a cycling between perspectives, thus adding a deeper degree of circularity to the phenomenon.

The prime role of determining principles is the dialectic and this is a principle.

This principle is grounded in a circularity.

The principle mode of dialectic is the application of fallacies.

These fallacies can be applied to the fallacies thus not only negating the fallacy, but necessitating the fallacy as strictly a negative limit as that which the argument is not.

Truth value exists in the assertion alone, as the assertion is underlined by the fact it exists therefor the fallacies are irrelevant except as a means of defining the grades of truth within an assertion.

All assertions exist a truth values regardless of the fallacies applied.

This truth value is grounded in the principle of circularity which determines all assertions as existing because they exist, there is not based statement which can be made within philosophy.

Pg3 ---- All phenomenon equate through a middle context. A "fire" and a "brick" are equal through the color red. This middle context connects and equivocates seemingly different phenomena.

This middle context is empty in itself thus diverges to further contexts. For example, the color red diverges into the seemingly different phenomena of "fire" and "brick".

All phenomena are thus grounded in the convergence and divergence of contexts. This convergence and divergence of phenomena necessitates all phenomena as dynamic. One phenomena expands into further phenomena and then reconverges into it original state.

Pg 3 --- Words are defined by their relationship to other words and as such their meaning changes in accords to their usage. Their is no constant meaning other than the context of usage. For example a descriptive word such as "red" means color, yet this color can mean a variety of things such as an apple or car.

Meaning is the direction of one word to another with this directional nature acting as the process of definition itself.

Pg 3 --- Truth is derived solely from consistency where an inconsistent statement such as 2 + 2 = 5 still necessitates 2 and 5 as existing as true in the respect they exist. 2 and 5 show consistency through the replication of the counted phenomena which form them, yet it is also true that 2+2=5 is a contradiction. On one hand truth exists through consistency, on the other hand the truth of 2+2=5 is true as inconsistent.


Any contradiction, as inconsistent, is derived from truth values which are true as existing. This existence is consistency. This consistency is replication. 2+2=5 is true as a contradiction, in other words it is true to state a contradiction occurs. 2+2=5 repeats as a consistent contradiction.

One could state that truth value is necessitated by consistency, with there being multiple grades of consistency, but this does not negate the fact with the absence of consistency that consistency does not exist. One can have an inconsistent statement with multiple sub consistencies available thus necessitating that while consistency is necessary for truth an absence of consistency still allows for consistency to exist.

Pg 3 --- Wholeness and fragmentation are complimentary. For example a series of monads exists. Each monad is the reflection of one monad considering they all share the same form. One monad exists across many.

Dually the multitude of monads reflects the one monad in multiple states, or rather multiple positions, at the same time. So while the one monad exists, it exists in relative multiple states with these multiple states being the expression of the one under an infinite series of forms. Each form is an approximation of "the one".

The monad exists as both one and many. One as the underlying base through all forms. Many as the series of forms which exist as approximations of the one.

Pg 3 ----
1. A particle moves from point A to point B.
2. This movement of the particle is the inversion from one position to another position.
3. The inversion from one position to another is the replication of the particle across space.
4. All movement is the manifestation of fractions/fractals of the distance between point A and point B.

5. A particle is the distance it travels from one position to another, thus a particle is movement.
6. This movement is a series of particles summated as one particle, this is considering each position of the particle is a new particle itself.
7. A particle is a series of positions, this series of positions necessitates the particle as the distance between point A and point B.
8. A particle is a series of lengths within lengths all defined by its movement, the particle is thus a series of linear ratios as lines within lines.

9. The particle as a distance between point A and B is the particle as a series of replicating forms.
10. This replication of forms is each particle as a length that is a fraction/fractal of another length.
11. The particle is point A to point B existing as fractions/fractals of point A to point B.
12. A particle is a line as it is the distance of movement, movement is replication, replication is the manifestation of one point as one position to another point as another position. Each position is a point relative to another point as a distance between two points. Each particle is a position of points relative to other points.

Pg 1 ---- All philosophy is inherently bias. This bias is rooted in the inherent subjective angles a subject is subject to. This bias necessitates an absence of progression except through the points of view already established as the bias itself.

Philosophical discussion is less about progressing past a viewpoint and more as the progression of an already established angle of observation. Even supposedly new "viewpoints" are mere variations of underlying viewpoints already established but underdeveloped.

It it this angle of observation that maintains itself as fundamentally the root of all philosophical dialect as the dialect itself. Two, or more, viewpoints converge for a period of time only to progressively diverge and reconverge over the topics established. Philosophy thus becomes a synthetic cycling between premises. This however paradoxically lends itself to a viewpoint that supersedes the actions of philosophy as a whole and thus summating them under a single viewpoint. This singular viewpoint, as the summation of a series of viewpoints, creates a paradox as no antithetical element to it can be presented other than a simple "no it is not true". An antiperspectivism stance is promoted, yet this in itself itself is a perspective, thus a contradiction occurs.

Philosophy is thus contradiction by its very nature, with the root of all contradictions occuring through the dualistic nature of dialectic itself. Philosophy becomes less a solution of contradictions as it becomes more of a promotion of contradiction for contradictions sake. The prime axiom of philosophy itself is contradiction through dialectic where solutions are less the anticipated course of philosophy but rather the maintainance of already held positions in the face of a antithetical state.

The prime purpose of philosophy reflects a form of self discovery, where the subjective point of view is reinforced against everything it is not. Philosophy thus takes the role of exploring a respective void where the already established point of view is tested and retested, in the face of continual obliteration, to reveal what goes on underneath. This void is the root of the division where both perspectives, those which occur through the dialectic, cycle between eachother on the precipice of "being". Dialectic is thus rooted in a Nothingness that all discourse hovers around leading philosophy as a dynamic state of revealing the interior nuances of an already established bias.

There is no solution to the "philosophical problem" as the problem itself is the very same solution that underlies all philosophical discourse. "The problem" is maintained as self evident because what is not self evident is what lies beneath "the problem". All axioms thus reflect a nature of being problematic as they are the means of dividing a proposition into further propositions in an effort to promote change. This change is less of a change from one bias to another but the promotion of change within the bias itself.

The change from one bias to a more complex bias is the reflection of "being", that which exists through the perspective of the observer, in the face of a complete voiding of that very same "being". Philosophy thus takes a role as a self reflective property through the surgical analysis presented through voiding. What voids a proposition is that which expands that very same axiom into a newer state of being. Dialectic thus takes the form of bias renewal with this bias renewal further necessitating that perspectives themselves, or one could say the core propositions behind those perspectives, are grounded in a dynamic change that leaves them as fundamentally formless assertions at their root point.

The dialectic thus takes the role of revealing what lies underneath the subconscious and giving it conscious form. It may even be taken a step further and said that the dialectic takes the role of revealing where the intended proposition is fundamentally empty of form and takes on a spontaneous nature. This spontaneous nature, where the bias proposition is broken down to its core root, thus subjects the bias as a product of chance with this chance being the spontaneity of the order resulting from the build up of said proposition.

The dialectic's means go far beyond finding and renewing the root of a bias proposition and goes well into the nature of its order as subject to a game of chance in which a viewpoint occurs because it is statistically inevitable to occur. Being, as an expression of the propositions which form it, thus takes on a nature of probabalism where a viewpoint is expressed as a statistical inevitability in light of a whole range of propositions. This nature of chance, as statistical inevitability, reflects a deep underlying nature of causality or determinism that results in the viewpoint itself.

One bias results in another bias and what occurs is a series of ever expanding spirals of reasoning, all different in content yet sharing the exact same form from which they originate. A proposition is halved into a thetical and antithetical element with this halving in turn occuring again and again to any possible synthesis which results from its prior state. The dialectic thus takes the form of proposition division, where each proposition (a bias perspective by default) is broken down into qualitative quantities of either a dualism or a triad. While the propositions may differ, what does not differ is their reduction into this dualism or triad. Even more complex propositions, that which results in four, five or six further propositions, is still subject to this dualism or triad as a dualism of triads, a dualism of dualisms, a triad of dualisms or a triad of triads.

The same statistical inevitability of a bias being expressed due to the play out of all possibilities still relegates itself to qualitative quantities. This division of the proposition occurs through its self expression in the face of a dialectical opposition which seeks to annihilate it. This potential annihilation acts as the form of division which reforms the basic proposition by breaking it down to its base roots and rebuilding it back into a whole. For ever proposition that is broken down, a series of dualistic or triadic propositions come in is place thus relegating philosophy to a cycling and recycling of propositions. The original bias state is thus reamplified through an expanded newer and newer form until the sheer magnitude of propositions, stemming from the original propositions, shatters the original proposition and a point 0 in knowledge occurs.

Page 1 ---- The doubling of positives results in a negative as a form of gradation occurs. For example the "reddest red" necessitates there being grades of red where one red is less than another, a deficiency in red occurs.

The doubling of negatives results in a positive as a negation of negation occurs. For example the "voiding of void" necessitates void as self negated into being, a positive state (being) occurs.

The doubling of a phenomena results in its thetical or antithetical element. Double positives results in its antithetical negative, double negatives results in a thetical positive.

The doubling of a phenomena is the simultaneous halving of one phenomena into two where a thetical or antithetical state results isomorphically to the original phenomena. With doubling of a thesis or antithesis comes the corresponding antithesis or thesis.

This isomorphism, or the changing of one phenomena to its opposing symmetrical state, necessitates that in the process of doubling a process of halving occurs. Before there was one phenomena, then the phenomena is halved into two phenomena as the opposing thetical or antithetical state, resulting in two phenomena where each is half of a synthetic whole. In the process of doubling a corresponding halving occurs, in the process of halving a corresponding doubling occurs.

Halving and doubling occur simultaneously where this process necessitates a change in the corresponding synthetic whole. The process of doubling and halving is a process of change, this change is the definition and redefinition of the triadic synthetic portion of the phenomenon where this synthetic portion is both phenomena as a synthetic one. The thesis and antithesis result in a synthesis, this synthesis results in a thesis and antithesis. This change necessitates all phenomena, as synthetic, as dynamic in nature. Doubling and halving, as simultaneous is the origins of the process of change.

This change results in a spiral. This starts as the cycling of the phenomena, through the doubling, and results in an off branching thesis or antithesis. This thesis or antithesis negates, through further doubling into a further thesis or antithesis.

For example the "reddest red" results into a newer color, as not red, such as "blue" and this in turn results in the "bluest blue" which in turn negates to another color, such as "yellow", while returning to its source as red.

Another example, keeping doubling negatives in mind, is the "voiding of void". Void negates itself into being. This being in turn is voided into grades of being. The "greatest being of being" necessitates grades of being, as evidenced in the double positives observed above, but also necessitates a spiral where being is voided into further being. The gradation of being results in a antithetical "deficiency of being", as grades of beings, which is negated through the "deficiency of deficient being", in turn cycles back to "being" itself. The process of double negatives, results in a thesis, which in turn is negated into further thesis' and antithesis.

In each of these ways the phenomena as cycling, through the doubling process, is recycled to its source while manifesting itself in a newer variation. Being progresses in definition through a spiral.

Page 1 ---

Void acts as a mirror.

The voiding of void necessitates Nothingness negating itself into being. Repetition is derived from nothing. This Nothingness, as not a thing in itself, self negates. Self negation is the beginning of the mirroring process.

The voiding of void, as being, necessitates all forms as replicating across nothingness. For example a particle in a vacuum, moving from point A to point B, observes a particle as replicating from one position into another. This replication is the mirroring of the particle considering, the particle in position A is a mirror image of the particle in position B.

. Dually a thought moving to another thought, through the empty state of the mind, observes one form replicate into another. Form A repeats itself under a new variation as form B; this can be observed under the morphing of a thought about a horse change into a unicorn, certain key characteristics (such as the legs and head of the horse) repeat into a newer form.

Void is the means of change from one phenomenon to another, this change is a replication of forms. This replication occurs through a process of mirroring where the void, ie nothingness, acts as a mirror to being thus causing it to repeat through a successive variation.