Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:39 pm**

In reference to the issues with the laws of Propositional Logic:

The laws must cycle through eachother, with the law of excluded middle acting as the middle through which they alternate. It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. If it exists, its still acts as a medial law with "either/or" being the medial neutral term. If it does not exists...well then the laws cease to exist considering they are base upon them. Propositional logic inevitable points to further necessary laws or contradicts itself through a continual regression.

Logic is triadic in nature if it:

1) It is to maintain truth statements while
2) simultaneously progressing truth statements.
3) With this dualism of maintanance and progression being the foundation of the axiom as a limit in itself being the third variable.

In these respects logic:

1) Must maintain itself through a circularity in which axioms occur through themselves as themselves by being directed back to themselves.
2) Linear progression, through which this inherent circularity leads one axiom to progress to another (which under point 1 circles back to the original axiom) and then progress to another.
3) Logic as simultaneously circular and linear, much in the same manner of an expanding circle or sphere, is dependent upon an inherent degree of "direction as definition" with definition itself acting as the limit through which order is observed.

These three laws extend to further three laws under each:

1a) Circular reflectivity in which an axiom exists as a cause. This cause cycles back to itself through effect as the maintenance of the cause. Cause/Effect is stability and no-change as a postive axiomatic limit in itself.

1b) Circular reflectivity in which an axiom exists as random. This randomness is observed through the effect where the effect is an approximate cause, with approximation being an observation of a deficiency in the original structure itself through a percieved multiplicity. Randomness is an absense of stability and absence of no-change as a negative axiomatic limit in itself.

1c) Intradimensional direction through cause/effect and randomness . This cause/effect paradigm, with randomness acting as the limit of cause through effect, observes all structures of logic as structure in itself which maintains itself through its own structure as an extension of further structures. Circular reflectivity is self-direction as structure in which all circularity exists as a universal and rational limit in itself necessary for definition.

2a) Linear Relation in which an axiom exists as an actual localization. All axioms are localities, with these localities existing as a set of relations in themselves that are both composed of and compose further relations. Localization is change as a positive axiomatic limit in itself.

2b) Linear Relation in which an axiom exists as a potential locality. All axioms, as actual relations, exist if and only if they may potentially relate to further axioms to form new axioms. Potential localization is absence of change as a negative axiomatic limit in itself.

2c) Extradimensional direction through Actual Locality and Potential Locality (non-locality). This Actuality and Potentiality paradigm, with the alternation of Actuality and Potentiality, observes all structures of logic as perpetual acausal change through a process of inversion resulting in the repitition of localities occuring through frequencies as a form of alternation as an approximation of the structure of Circularity in the first set of Laws. This inversion observe all axioms as directed away from there origins with this progression acting as a limit of "change" in itself.

3a) Limit Synthesis in which an axiom exists as a limit in itself and limit as the foundation of axioms. All axioms are limits, with these limits existing as both intradimensional and extradimensional as interdimensional. Limit is both absolute constant and relativistic change as a postive neutral median in itself. All axioms, as limits, are medians.

3b) Limit Synthesis in which an axiom exists as no-limit in itself an no-limit through which axioms exist. All axioms are possibilistic (without limit), with this absence of limit (possibility) being the mean through which axioms as limits exist. No-limit as neither an axiom nor not an axiom is a negation of limit in itself as a negative neutral median. All axioms, as no-limit, are medians.

3c) Interdimensional direction through limit and no-limit. This Limit and No-Limit Paradigm, with the simultaneous Reflective Circularity and Relativistic Alternation, observes all axioms as both causal and acausal through direction itself being the foundation of all axioms. All axioms exists as medial limits due to this interdimensional nature with all mediation being the foundation of the axiom in itself.

So in summation the laws are:

1) Reflective Intradimensional Circularity
a1) Cause and Effect
a2) Randomness
a3) Intradimensionality

2) Linear Extradimensional Relation
b1) Actual Locality
b2) Potential Locality
b3) Extradimensionality

3) Interdimensional Limit Synthesis
c1) Limit
c2) No-Limit
c3) Interdimensionality

4) These laws exist as foundation for the other laws and cycle through themselves relativistically and maintain a constant circular structure through themselves as themselves while simultaneously being open for further expansion of definition. Each Law is composed of 3 laws as 1 law in itself, which each law as one law leading to the 3 laws from which it exists as a constant extension and relativistic grade. This is axiomatic.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:36 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote:... It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. …

No it doesn't as it is a tautology and hence always true. No idea what 'existence' has to do with anything?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:35 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:36 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:... It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing. …
No it doesn't as it is a tautology and hence always true. No idea what 'existence' has to do with anything?

Tautology:
"the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession)."

https://www4.bing.com/search?q=tautolog ... 4B8B20930C

Contradiction is a deficiency in truth where the truth cannot sustain itself on its own. As a localized axiom, it must continually relate to further localities in order to exist and hence exists if it continually projects pasts its own origins.

If viewed as an axiom in itself, it exists as an approximation of a unified axiom where this approximate nature observes an inherent degree of randomness in it as a deficiency in structural unity through multiplicity.

The Law of Exclude Middle is true if and only if:

1) It is viewed as an extension of another axiom, which relativistically puts it in a place where any observation of it existing through a triad inevitably places it in the middle as an origin point (contradicting the law in itself).

2) It is viewed as an localize axiom that must divide or multiply into further axioms ad-infinitum.

3) This tautological nature of all axioms observes an inherent degree of repitition, through the law of excluded middle in this case, where this multiplicity provides the bases for points 1 and 2.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:07 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
Tautology:
"the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession)."

Tautology in Logic:
"In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation." - Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:40 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:07 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
Tautology:
"the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession)."
Tautology in Logic:
"In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation." - Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Then a tautology falls under the fallacy of equivocation.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... uivocation

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:52 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Then a tautology falls under the fallacy of equivocation.

There is nothing equivocal about the tautologies, they might be pointless with respect to the contingencies and reality but they identify the necessary propositions and the necessary limits of reality.

You appear quite a bright chap but I think you have got yourself lost in the patterns you can see and a metaphysic that you try to fit everything into but you don't appear to have actually applied yourself to the study of the subjects you are trying to critique. My advice would be to study Formal/Symbolic Logic from the beginning and maybe Maths, get yourself to a high level of proficiency and then try again and maybe you'll have something. Try Boole, Russell, Whitehead and Frege's views of Logic for starters and then Wittgenstein's critique.

Posted: **Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:34 am**

Saw some nasty documentaries last night - one about Scientology and another about KKK. What struck me is that each group is full of people who don't even attempt for a moment to be even a bit reasonable. Rather, the approach is sheer aggression, denial and refusal to compromise on anything.

Many people mistake the adoption of reason as an inhibition of freedom - if one feels compelled to go along with reason, then one is effectively controllable.

In prison the extreme form of unreason is the "mad dog" approach, where a total lack of restraint and unbridled viciousness intimidates and creates space to operate without interference. It seems that civil society has become so soft and gentrified that it can no longer deal with the mad dog approach - what can a reasonable person do in dealing with the unreasonable? Not much, they are usually intimidated and railroaded.

The first step for reason is sincerity and goodwill. Without those, any other criteria have no power, as is being demonstrated in public life today.

Posted: **Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:00 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Then a tautology falls under the fallacy of equivocation.
There is nothing equivocal about the tautologies, they might be pointless with respect to the contingencies and reality but they identify the necessary propositions and the necessary limits of reality.

"Tautology" has multiple definitions, and its application as a means of truth makes its subject to certain fallacies.

Now granted, many of the fallacies cancel themselves out also...I will eventually work on this also.

Take for example the "fallacy of equivocation" again. This is subject to multiple degrees of definition: "Calling two things by the same name", "Defining x number of phenomenon by the same concept", "Ambiguity in one definition because of multiple definitions"...etc.

The only real fallacy is that everything is a fallacy at one point or another. However this statement if true, must simultaneously contradict itself also as this in itself would be a fallacy, hence what we observe as "fallacy" or "contradiction" is "a deficiency in truth" where fullness as unity observes the premise for all truth.

This is where the 3 Laws of Logic fail...along with some of the following logicians/mathematicians I will later observe....they contradict themselves because they are incomplete when taken as systems in themselves as their laws lack a self-referential quality. They are true in the respect they branch into eachother through relations, however these relations observe each law of localized field of logic/math that cannot exist on their own terms unless they relate to further fields.

The 13 Prime Directive Laws observes this self-referential quality while being open to relation as these Laws are direction as direction and maintain themselves as constants while being open to change as approximation (which is in the law itself hence it cycles back).

One of the few things logic observes without contradicting itself, and you observed this correctly in the above, is "limit". This nature of "limit" applies an inherent degree of "directionality" within reason itself as evidenced by common notations in both logic and math as "tending towards" "therefore" "because", etc. These are examples of inherently directional terms when the axiom exists in any linear form.

Logic is founded in qualitative aspects of Euclidian Geometry whether we intend for it or not in the respect these "limits" of logic are dependent upon directional qualities.

Russel, if I remember correctly, tried to take this approach of continual non-self-referential projection in his Principia Mathematica and was later found to have failed because of Godel who observed that any mathematical system must have some degree of self-referentiality if it is to exist and maintain its own axioms. This nature of "projection" and "self-referentiality" mirrors "extradimensionality" and "intradimensionality" as inherent aspects with logic/math, along with the act of definition itself, thereby necessitating certain "directional qualities" which are inevitable.

Boole....he was self-educated first of all...like me (although I am not comparing myself to him but rather observing a premise he set in the field of logic/math).

Second:

1) His lattice of subsets is dependent strictly on directional qualities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_a ... structure)

2) His correspondence to "truth" quantitatively as "1" and "falsity" as "0" corresponds and agrees fully with many of my arguments here where 1 exists as "being" and "0" "no-being" where "truth is being" and "falsity is non-being".

2a) "conjunction and denoted as ∧, the disjunction or denoted as ∨" observes both "and" and "or" as simultaneous connective and seperatoring medians from which a truth statement extends...Boole argues for an inversion of this. In these respects, using his own logic of relations, P (as 13 Prime Directive Laws) and B (as Boolean Algebra) observes:

(P∧B = T) ↔ (P=T, B=T)
(P∧B = F) ↔ (P=T, B=F)
(P∧B = F) ↔ (P=F, B=T)
(P∧B = F) ↔ (P=F, B=F)

(P∨B = T) ↔ (P=T, B=T)
(P∨B = T) ↔ (P=T, B=F)
(P∨B = T) ↔ (P=F, B=T)
(P∨B = F) ↔ (P=F, B=F)

where "P and B" can both be true if both are true. If one is false the other is false when directed to a new localized output.

and "P or B" can both be true if either is true. However if both are false then the new localized output ceases to exist.

In these respect "P" is always true when "B" is true, hence relativistically speaking if "B" is observed as being "true" "P" is always true according to "B". However P is not limited to "B", however exists through it. P can be true on its own terms regardless of the truth value of B and whether they are observed conjunctively or disjunctively. To conjuntively where Boole may be "false" under its own terms relative to "P" as true, "P" would be false under Boolean Logic where under PD logic B is strictly a localized entity that still exists regards of it truth value, and hence has a truth value because of its extension from P.

In simpler terms If Boolean logic is false then PD is false. If PD is true, Boolean logic may be deficient in truth but is always true regardless.

Now where Boolean may be true and PD is false, under a conjunctive statement both are false...hence boolean logic still short changes itself.

Under PD, Boolean logic is simultaneously true and false at the same time in different respects regardless of the truth value of Boolean Logic in itself.

B is true as an extension of PD, however is false in the respect it is an approximate of it.
B is true as it relates to PD, however is false in the respect it must continually be redefined relative to PD.

PD is true as an extension of B, however is false in the respect it is an approximate of it...however it cycles back to its origins (unlike B) and observes the PD is an approximate of itself as being its own cause hence transcends this falsity has a higher truth statement in itself. So while PD may be false from a Boolean Logic, it transcends it and maintain Both as true. It does not contradict itself in these respects, while Boolean Logic does.

PD is true as it relates to B, however is false in the respect if must be continually redefined through Boolean Logic...however it projects past its origins through Boolean Logic and hence maintains a constant degree of itself through its extension in boolean logic hence can be observed from multiple angles that continual progress to PD as being potentially true, with this potentiality eventually inverting to PD as a localized set of relations in itself and hence true...Boolean Logic cannot project past its origins in this regard without contradicting itself as it is not a potential logical system in itself only an actual one which must exist through further potential systems.

"And" observes a connection through unification where the localities are directed towards eachother as "and" observes a unification of multiple localized variables as one variable which in itself is directed.

However Boole invertly observes this as a seperator where the two inputs of truth or false always result in "false" if one or both are "false"...in these respects "and" acts as a director where if one value is false there is nothing in effect to address.

(A∧B = T) ↔ (A=T, B=T)
(A∧B = F) ↔ (A=T, B=F)
(A∧B = F) ↔ (A=F, B=T)
(A∧B = F) ↔ (A=F, B=F)
Where "and" observes "xy"

"Or" observes a seperation through individuation where the localities are directed away from each other as "or" observes a multiplicity of localized variables that may be directed in and of themselves but not all of them...one is directed as the resulting axiom but not the others.

However boole observes this as a connection where two inputs of either truth or false always result in "true" if one of both are true...in these respects "or" acts as a director where if both values are false there is in effect nothing to direct.

(A∨B = T) ↔ (A=T, B=T)
(A∨B = T) ↔ (A=T, B=F)
(A∨B = T) ↔ (A=F, B=T)
(A∨B = F) ↔ (A=F, B=F)
Where "or" observes "x+y"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

"Whitehead's contributions to "mereotopology", a theory describing spatial relations among wholes, parts, parts of parts, and the boundaries between parts.[48]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead) observes inherent directive properties within the limits of space itself which mirrors PD.

Whitehead work on the Unification of Mathematics (An Introduction to Mathematics) observes the inherent directional qualities of mathematics through unity and multiplicity where connection observes an extension of a whole (the field of mathematics) and the direction of one localized field to another localized field through relation and observes the basic premises of PD as unity and multiplicity however (as far as I understand) fails to observe this "unity" and "multiplicity" as directive laws in themselves...hence his argument ignores quality while depending strictly on quantity.

You appear quite a bright chap but I think you have got yourself lost in the patterns you can see and a metaphysic that you try to fit everything into but you don't appear to have actually applied yourself to the study of the subjects you are trying to critique. My advice would be to study Formal/Symbolic Logic from the beginning and maybe Maths, get yourself to a high level of proficiency and then try again and maybe you'll have something. Try Boole, Russell, Whitehead and Frege's views of Logic for starters and then Wittgenstein's critique.

They are systems which while true, as extensions of PD (which is self-sustained), contradict themselves on their own terms...this is the basic premise I am arguing when referring back to the 3 laws of Logic...extradimensional projection leads to contradiction and a self-referential framework (necessitated by Godel) is inevitable. The laws must both be intradimensional and extradimensional.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:41 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
They are systems which while true, as extensions of PD (which is self-sustained), contradict themselves on their own terms...this is the basic premise I am arguing when referring back to the 3 laws of Logic...extradimensional projection leads to contradiction and a self-referential framework (necessitated by Godel) is inevitable. The laws must both be intradimensional and extradimensional.

Whilst I applaud the autodidact and think the internet a wonderful source of learning your posts show what is fundamentally wrong with your approach to learning in that wiki and goggle are not the way to gain an education nor to comprehend a field, especially if one wishes to critique or make an impact in it, as you filter what you find through your already preconcieved metaphysic, only select what suits you and misuse the English language in the extreme. The pleasure and the hardship of a formal education is that you have to consider and take onboard ideas, viewpoints and concepts that you might not like or agree with but have to master before you can say what is wrong with them. You also learn the language of the subjects so you can communicate what you think is wrong with them in a way that is comprehensible to others. From what I can gather you are trying to recreate the wheel and build a better mousetrap without checking what has been done before. My advice is to use the internet as it should be used with respect to learning and an education and find the original sources and read those first, hence you can find Boole's, Russell's, Whitehead's, Frege's, Godel, et al's original works on Logic, Thought and Reason in pdf form somewhere so I suggest you do so and read them. I also think many of the major universities put up free courses in many subjects including formal Logics and the Theory of Axiomatic Systems, etc, I think you should take them as you are mixing and matching all kinds of different symbols from different fields into a great hodge-podge of meaninglessness. I think it's time you should take that brain and discipline it then come back with something comprehensible. Who knows, you just might come up with something original.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:12 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
They are systems which while true, as extensions of PD (which is self-sustained), contradict themselves on their own terms...this is the basic premise I am arguing when referring back to the 3 laws of Logic...extradimensional projection leads to contradiction and a self-referential framework (necessitated by Godel) is inevitable. The laws must both be intradimensional and extradimensional.
Whilst I applaud the autodidact and think the internet a wonderful source of learning your posts show what is fundamentally wrong with your approach to learning in that wiki and goggle are not the way to gain an education nor to comprehend a field, especially if one wishes to critique or make an impact in it, as you filter what you find through your already preconcieved metaphysic, only select what suits you and misuse the English language in the extreme.

Language is meaning and all meaning existing from through the framework in which it extends. Wittgenstein observes this simple concept, and basically points that language is relational. This logic applies to the different frameworks in mathematics as well, considering there are 50+ pages of different types of mathematics, we see a multitude of different frameworks. In these respects the frameworks gain meaning through themselves alone and contradict their own nature unless they extend through other frameworks. To go back to the metaphysics, a part exists through another part with this relation being a part in itself....this applies to all frameworks whether abstract (in this case) or physical.

I expressedly stated that these frameworks are not "wrong", but rather "wrong" in themselves hence are not justified as true on their own terms but only in relation to other frameworks. Barring the philosophical implications of Godel's work, none of these works and mathematicians (as far as I currently know) maintain a self-referencing framework but rather one those continually progresses away from its origins, hence becomes relativistically unstable...one does not need a PH.D in mathematics to understand this point as mathematics is dependent upon inherent qualities where even quantificative functions (such as basic addition, subtraction, etc.) fall under the fallacy of equivocation in the respect they have dual qualitative meanings.

Logic does not always justify the premise, and no matter how beautiful and complex a house on sand may be...it is still built on a foundation of sand. In sports terms on may see a great martial artist fail to an amateur strictly being the amateur kicks him in the balls. I am in the ball kicking business. Rome was not established by teaching their soldiers complex martial arts but rather to stab for the groin or neck.

Most people see a beautiful house and forget about the foundation entirely....I look at the foundations first to see if the house is really beautiful or just an illusion. I learned this from my days in university where we would be tested on a philosopher. All the students would memorize the complex arguments of the philosopher (I remember this when tested on Husserl and Wittgenstein specifically) and spend a week or two prior doing this. I would study their basic premises for about 15 minutes before the test. I scored higher than the people studying for weeks.

The truth is that most people put a massive amount of work into a project without the proper foundations only to see that work fail.

The pleasure and the hardship of a formal education is that you have to consider and take onboard ideas, viewpoints and concepts that you might not like or agree with but have to master before you can say what is wrong with them.

The same logic dually applies to you where one with a formal education should be able to understand fully the viewpoint from outside an education source in order to take it apart. Your argument also stems from a fallacy of authority. But with that being said I am pursuing my master's this fall barring chaotic circumstances, and if not fall then the winter (hopefully). So I am not entirely avoiding the formal framework either. But one also has to remember academia is a democratic institution where truth is deemed through majority opinion, and hence must be put to question itself...it is a "means" to knowledge, but not the be all end all.

Remember the academic "Boole" was self-taught...a symmetry can exist between formal and informal training without contradiction.

You also learn the language of the subjects so you can communicate what you think is wrong with them in a way that is comprehensible to others. From what I can gather you are trying to recreate the wheel and build a better mousetrap without checking what has been done before.

I am not recreating a wheel but rather observing what is taught is rather a spoke in the wheel and not a wheel itself.

My advice is to use the internet as it should be used with respect to learning and an education and find the original sources and read those first, hence you can find Boole's, Russell's, Whitehead's, Frege's, Godel, et al's original works on Logic, Thought and Reason in pdf form somewhere so I suggest you do so and read them. I also think many of the major universities put up free courses in many subjects including formal Logics and the Theory of Axiomatic Systems, etc, I think you should take them as you are mixing and matching all kinds of different symbols from different fields into a great hodge-podge of meaninglessness.

Each symbol is defined through the framework it is applied. "^" does not mean the same thing in one framework as another, however I observes, referencing Boole again, that while "^" observed "and" as having certain qualties similiar to multiplication (one does not need an advanced degree to know this) that this meaning may be inverted to mean addition under a seperate system.

Other examples such as Russel's need to avoid self-referencing have been proven faulty and works such as the Principia Mathematica are not accepted by all mathematicians and logicians.

Observing the basic extra-dimensional and intra-dimensional qualities of definition put's many mathematics on tilt (like a house built on sand) because it implies an inherent degree of quality that defines quantity. There is no strict nature of quantification alone which allows the mathematician to not contradict himself eventually.

I think it's time you should take that brain and discipline it then come back with something comprehensible. Who knows, you just might come up with something original.

Sheer force of will from chaos is discipline...memorizing someone's else's work and agreeing with it takes far less sacrifice than looking through dictionaries and encyclopedia's to from something new. The simple truth is that you take these method's on faith alone because they are the current framework's being applied.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:25 pm**

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:...
They are systems which while true, as extensions of PD (which is self-sustained), contradict themselves on their own terms...this is the basic premise I am arguing when referring back to the 3 laws of Logic...extradimensional projection leads to contradiction and a self-referential framework (necessitated by Godel) is inevitable. The laws must both be intradimensional and extradimensional.
Whilst I applaud the autodidact and think the internet a wonderful source of learning your posts show what is fundamentally wrong with your approach to learning in that wiki and goggle are not the way to gain an education nor to comprehend a field, especially if one wishes to critique or make an impact in it, as you filter what you find through your already preconcieved metaphysic, only select what suits you and misuse the English language in the extreme. The pleasure and the hardship of a formal education is that you have to consider and take onboard ideas, viewpoints and concepts that you might not like or agree with but have to master before you can say what is wrong with them. You also learn the language of the subjects so you can communicate what you think is wrong with them in a way that is comprehensible to others. From what I can gather you are trying to recreate the wheel and build a better mousetrap without checking what has been done before. My advice is to use the internet as it should be used with respect to learning and an education and find the original sources and read those first, hence you can find Boole's, Russell's, Whitehead's, Frege's, Godel, et al's original works on Logic, Thought and Reason in pdf form somewhere so I suggest you do so and read them. I also think many of the major universities put up free courses in many subjects including formal Logics and the Theory of Axiomatic Systems, etc, I think you should take them as you are mixing and matching all kinds of different symbols from different fields into a great hodge-podge of meaninglessness. I think it's time you should take that brain and discipline it then come back with something comprehensible. Who knows, you just might come up with something original.

Here's is another more simple way to look at it: All definition, in both math and logic, is dependent upon the inherent directional quality of both the statement and the units which composed that statement...we assume this but do not provide a foundation for it as a logical system in itself. If you do not agree that direction is inherent within logic or math, whether in the units which compose the equation or the equation itself, then address this point.

That sums it up: definition is direction.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:33 pm**

13 Prime Directives of Reason

1) All Meaning Exists As Both Positive and Negative Values

All meaning is subject to the context in which it exists; hence the relation of both context and the context of that context exists as meaning itself. This statement is universal and hence has no context except as itself, hence is intradimensionally directed; therefore the prior statement is negated while existing as true if and only if it continually expands, hence is extra dimensionally directed. From this statement all meaning maintains simultaneously positive and negative values, as both existing and lacking in existence; contradiction as a deficiency in reasoning is a statement of incompletion, hence relation, and does not exist on its own terms. Structure through reason is meaning with philosophy existing as the means of reasoning with knowledge as order through structure.

2) All Meaning Is Premise as Origin

There can be no universal philosophy which explains everything as it would not only have to progress ad-fininitum, necessitating a permanent incompleteness, but would have to be completely unified and absent of any particular nature where a finite definition relates to another finite definition. However this in itself is a universal philosophy as it explains all philosophies and forthwith definition itself; therefore exists as a premise, equivalent to beginning point of origin, from which all philosophies are grounded while necessitating the premise as a universal philosophy in itself. All philosophy exists as premise, for further philosophies which exist as premise, from which reason is mediated through a point of origin.

3) All Meaning Necessitates a Dual Linear and Circular Form and Function

There can be no universal premises which set the foundation for all philosophies; hence no universal philosophy, considering this observes philosophies exist through philosophies, as they would have to be continually broken down ad-infinitum while simultaneously manifesting further premises, and thereby philosophies, ad-infinitum. All premises, and therefore philosophies, in themselves must in effect be viewed as extensions of a universal and hence universal in themselves through the universal from which they extend. This in effect observes not just an infinite number of premises under increasely progressive finite relations but all finite premises as being universals in themselves as both extensions of universals and through the respect they progress ad-infinitum. This progressive nature of the premise through linear relations in the Western context of reasoning and a self-maintained circular nature in the Eastern context of reasoning observes it as fundamentally a directive means where the premise is directed both away from and towards itself through the structure of reason.

4) All Axioms Are Directives

The premise as the foundation for all reason in effect exists as a means where universality is intradimensional and finiteness is extradimensional; hence premises exist fundamentally as directives with the directive in itself being self-evident, as an axiom, considering direction in itself is the foundation of not just movement but any stability from which movement arises. Axioms act as premises in the respect they are directives with the directive observing a dual nature of movement and stability with synthesize as limits in themselves considering both movement and stability extend from and exist through limit. The premise as directive, through its axiomatic nature as directive itself necessitates the axiom is the limit of reason as a directive; hence gives origin to both premise and the philosophy which stems from the premise as axioms in themselves and therefore directive limits which give both structure and meaning to phenomena.

5) All Axioms Are Limits Through Unity and Multiplicity

All axioms are in themselves limits, through their directive nature with these statements being directive(s). These limits are both composed of and composing further limits through the limit itself; hence the limit maintains a dual extradimensional progressive linear nature and an intradimensional self-maintain circular nature, with the axiom existing through the axiom. The axiom through the axiom, which is an axiom in itself, observes the axiom as both self-maintained unity as 1 and relating localities (parts/units) as 1 providing the limit of Unity and Multiplicity.

6) All Axioms Act as Points of Inversion, Hence are Non-Axiomatic

As both self-maintained unity and progressive unit(s) the axiom observes a dualistic nature where its inversion between the one and many is non-axiomatic as an absence of axiom; which is conducive qualitatively to nothingness and quantitative 0 being a foundation of inversion from which the axiom as nothing is in itself inversive of other axioms through a self negation. The axiom as unity negates itself through the axiom as unit and the axiom as unit negates itself through the axiom as unity, where one inverts to the other as a relativistic positive or negative to the other when viewed as units. Or they exist as simple approximation of the other from a fixed unity. The axioms as a point of inversion, in the respect that the existence of one axiom is the non-existence of the other, observes the axiom as self-negating hence non-axiomatic at the same time in different respects. As inversive all axioms maintain a dual nature of randomness.

7) All Axioms are Infinite

This nature of the axiom as being premised in the “limit” through its directive capacity as both circular and linear necessitates a continuity in this “directive capacity” considering a self maintained circularity and linear progressiveness exists if and only it is infinite; hence limit exists through no-limit where the self-negation of no-limit, through its own absences of form and function, results in the limit. The limit continues a progressive movement through the negation of origin (as a limit in itself) while maintains itself through the absence of limit being the negative boundary which gives form to limit.

All Axioms are Meaning Through a Triadic Nature

The axiom, exists through limit and no-limit, observing a triadic nature in itself while simultaneously observing the origins of subjectivity and objectivity (under the premised of self-evidence which defines the axiom as “axiom”) as both existing from and through “limit”. This nature of limit, and its corresponding foundation within the axiom as the axiom through the axiom, observes an inherent directive capacity through the intradimensional and extradimensional nature of definition which necessitates in turn a third nature of limit, and hence the axiom, as interdimensional, where limit exists as a means to both further limit as itself through itself; furthermore the axiom exists as means therefore meaning.

9) All Axioms are Neutral Definition as Movement and No-Movement Through Synthesis

This interdimensional nature of the axiom, through limit, gives a premise of neutrality from which intradimensional circular direction and extradimensional linear direction are synthesized through eachother and as existing in themselves. This intradimensional nature of definition, through circularity, observes an inherent self-maintained structure where extra dimensionality observes a progressive movement, with this movement and no-movement in effect providing the foundation of the axiom being definition through direction with the act of definition itself stemming from limit as limit. Definition, as axiomatic, is meaning and occurs through reasoning as a directive form and function.

10) All Axioms are Causal and Random in Nature Through Mirroring Constants

Intradimensionality in effect, as structural maintenance, observes an inherent reflective capacity as infinite repetition of limits as a unified limit in itself setting the standard for the observation of causality as the observation of structure with any negation to this “causality as structure” giving further premised to randomness as approximation. Hence all axioms exist as one through extensions of the one and maintain this extensional nature through infinite structure under a self-reflective nature of cause through cause as effect with any perceived multiplicity in turn being an observation of randomness as negation in unity. This unified nature of the axiom observes it as positive and existing with the negative being an approximation of this unity, with the positive nature as existing occurring through a self- mirroring process of continual repetition as One.

Reason, through the axiom, in effect exists as 1 self-mirroring infinite moment from which all further reason, through the axioms, extends from as approximates of this 1 reason which exists qualitatively as a 1 dimensional point and the point as the quantitative foundation for one. This approximation between points, as a point, in effect is the axiom as a point in itself that exists approximately through other axioms under a negative dimensional linear limits that observe a connection between the axiom as one. All axioms as points of reason, are reason in and of themselves through the one axiom which is observed approximately through multiplicity.

Mirroring Constants are the foundation of Relativity while existing through its Synthesis with Relativistic Change.

11) All Axioms are Actual and Potential Localizations Through Relative Change

Extradimensionality in effect, as progressive movement, observes an inherent relational capacity as parts existing through parts which both are composed of parts and compose further parts as finite localized phenomena where the actual localized part acts as a means of parts and any potential locality is a negative limit to localization as non-localization. This relational aspect to the localized nature of parts observes an inherent element extradimensional projection, premised through linearism as a spatial limit, where a part must continual project pasts its own origins to further parts under a simultaneously process of multiplication and division as individuation in which the part exist as a ratio of another through its linear progressive nature embodied under time as a temporal entity in itself.

Reason, through the axiom, in effect exists as relative units with these units being composed of further units with the unit itself observing movement as relation through multiplicity of parts as a 1 dimensional line and the line as the quantitative approximation of one as unity being one as unit relation. This continual relation of lines, as a line, in effect is the axiom as a line in itself which exists potentially through other axioms as potential axioms. The dual nature of actual and potential axioms as linear relations observes the axiom as a localization of limit. All axioms as lines of reason, are the continual progression of reason through the continual progression of axioms which is observe continually as a localization of unity being continual direction.

Relativity is an Inversion of Mirroring Constants while existing through its Synthesis with these Mirroring Constants

12) All Axioms are Spatial and All Space is Axiomatic

The axiom in turn is:

a) Both limit and no-limit and extends from limit through limit as limit with limit providing the means of definition, hence order and being, as limit itself. The limit is the foundation of unity and multiplicity and through the axiom. The axiom is directive as means.

b) Causal as a means of self-reflective structure from which all structure extends from and through as structure itself, with structure itself being “causal” and existing through randomness as the limit of this structure. The axiom exists as the extension of 1 intradimensional point through which everything exists as 1 infinite moment which is approximately observed through multiple axioms which are points in themselves. All axioms are points from which structure begins and ends as an axiom (or point) in itself. The axiom is directive as self-maintaining through a self-mirroring process that exists infinitely as 1.

c) Acausal as a means of continual relation of parts which exist through a process of inversion of unity into multiplicity with this multiplicity in turn approximating “unity” through the “unit” as localized relations which exist through non-localized movement (no-movement). The axiom exists as a 1 dimensional line of continually relating axioms which in turn both compose and are composed of further axioms as linear relations, with the localization of the relations through the line as an axiom in effect observe all axioms as points of inversion in one respect an in a seperate respect existing through potential non-localized axioms as the negative limit through which the axiom exists. The axiom is directive as progressive through a process of individuation (muliplicaiton/division) that continues ad-infinitum.

d) The axiom in turn exists as having a triadic nature of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 and is “directive” in nature through its nature as limit. All axioms as directive in turn observe a premise in space through the line, point and circle through which they exist in both form and function. This quantitative nature of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 observes a qualitative nature of direction with both quantity and quality acting as limits in themselves that alternate through eachother. The axiom as the foundation of definition, through limit, exists as an infinitely expanding and contracting circle from which all definition, through the process of reason, existing as both founded upon and existing through space. Reason, as directive, is premised in space with the axiom extending from and through space as space. Space is being, as it gives form and function through the limit, with all axioms being composed of space and composing space as space itself through the “limit”. This is a simultaneously linear and circular axiom.

13) These Directives are Laws

These directives observe directives, as limits in themselves through their directive nature and maintain this directive nature as both intradimensional as circulating through themselves through a reflective symmetry which is causal, and extradimensional as projecting past themselves through a relativistic multiplicity that is individuative as an approximation of these causal laws. In these respects these directives as laws continually maintain themselves through their own circular definition while continually projecting towards further definition by observing the axiom, as dual subjective and objective truth, as interdimensional where all definition begins and ends through an infinitely expanding and contracting circle as the foundation of rational form. These 13 directives are axiomatic are both self-maintained and open for further definition.

Posted: **Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:18 am**

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:34 am Saw some nasty documentaries last night - one about Scientology and another about KKK. What struck me is that each group is full of people who don't even attempt for a moment to be even a bit reasonable. Rather, the approach is sheer aggression, denial and refusal to compromise on anything.

Many people mistake the adoption of reason as an inhibition of freedom - if one feels compelled to go along with reason, then one is effectively controllable.

In prison the extreme form of unreason is the "mad dog" approach, where a total lack of restraint and unbridled viciousness intimidates and creates space to operate without interference. It seems that civil society has become so soft and gentrified that it can no longer deal with the mad dog approach - what can a reasonable person do in dealing with the unreasonable? Not much, they are usually intimidated and railroaded.

The first step for reason is sincerity and goodwill. Without those, any other criteria have no power, as is being demonstrated in public life today.

Greta, your post is rich with acumen and insight. Couldn’t we have a separate thread in its own right on this?

Posted: **Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:24 am**

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:18 am
Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:34 am Saw some nasty documentaries last night - one about Scientology and another about KKK. What struck me is that each group is full of people who don't even attempt for a moment to be even a bit reasonable. Rather, the approach is sheer aggression, denial and refusal to compromise on anything.

Many people mistake the adoption of reason as an inhibition of freedom - if one feels compelled to go along with reason, then one is effectively controllable.

In prison the extreme form of unreason is the "mad dog" approach, where a total lack of restraint and unbridled viciousness intimidates and creates space to operate without interference. It seems that civil society has become so soft and gentrified that it can no longer deal with the mad dog approach - what can a reasonable person do in dealing with the unreasonable? Not much, they are usually intimidated and railroaded.

The first step for reason is sincerity and goodwill. Without those, any other criteria have no power, as is being demonstrated in public life today.
Greta, your post is rich with acumen and insight. Couldn’t we have a separate thread in its own right on this?

Sure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:33 pm**

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:24 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:18 am
Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:34 am Saw some nasty documentaries last night - one about Scientology and another about KKK. What struck me is that each group is full of people who don't even attempt for a moment to be even a bit reasonable. Rather, the approach is sheer aggression, denial and refusal to compromise on anything.

Many people mistake the adoption of reason as an inhibition of freedom - if one feels compelled to go along with reason, then one is effectively controllable.

In prison the extreme form of unreason is the "mad dog" approach, where a total lack of restraint and unbridled viciousness intimidates and creates space to operate without interference. It seems that civil society has become so soft and gentrified that it can no longer deal with the mad dog approach - what can a reasonable person do in dealing with the unreasonable? Not much, they are usually intimidated and railroaded.

The first step for reason is sincerity and goodwill. Without those, any other criteria have no power, as is being demonstrated in public life today.
Greta, your post is rich with acumen and insight. Couldn’t we have a separate thread in its own right on this?
Sure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means

I know you have a point Greta, I am just failing to see it.

Philosophy Now Forum

The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)