The "I" as Quantitative
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:26 pm
The nature of "I" as qualitatively dependent upon the culture which we both form and forms us takes on a dual quantitative nature in the respect the "I" as both groups and composing groups exists as temporal.
"I" is quantitative in the respect it is directed through time as time, with all number's as being founded through empirical "counting" observing fundmanetally a movement in time. If I observe "1" orange, I am observing "1" as fundamentally being a direction in time considering the "orange as 1" is an observation of the orange as a localization of change (considering the orange exists as change through growth and entropy) through the change of time.
Hence the act of quantification as observing limits through time exists as a folding process where time itself as 1 directional change is composed of further changes as multiple directions (considering the change of the orange as growth and entropy is composed of the relation of cells whose change exists because of the direction these cells are moving...movement exists through direction with direction as the means of change. Movement is active and direction is passive in these regards...however this point may have to be elaborated on further).
The "I" as quantitative in the respect it is temporal exist as 1 means of change where these different aspects of "I" as mind, body or spirit (emotion) observes that mind, body, spirit as 3 medians of change as one "I" and one "I" as 3 medians of change.
And that "actuality" exists through the means of thinking as thinking is an act...so is both "feeling" and "physical action" furthermore.
The "I" is merely an observation of singularization where what we percieve as the "I" is fundamentally 1 means of being which is composed of and composed further singularities of existence. In these respects the "I" is not just a qualitative understanding of reality but has inherent quantitative aspects.
What seperates the qualitative and quantitative nature of the "I" from the Human being or let's say the wolf, is it's mediation. Where the "I" of a man may both be composed of further "I"'s and composing further "I"'s the wolf main not contain or compose as many "I"'s.
This point may have to further elaborated upon...but I will address that point later if necessary as we are still left with the problem of consciousness as one of "degree" where the greater or lesser number of "I"'s determines the level of consciousness...in these respects the nature of consciousness as degree is still a facet of consciousness as the "degree" is merely a means of relation.
One could argue that a higher consciousness observes the degree, however a lower form still exists through these very same degrees...in these respects the consciousness as existing through degree is merely a degree in itself and the nature of consciousness as existing through degrees observes the consciousness as a mediator...the level of consciousness in these respects is less one of higher or lower but rather one of mediation as a point of origin. In these respects the "I" as consciousness exists as a means of change as continual relation with this continual relation as continual change observing the "I" as a median of change in itself...hence a constant.
This continual relative nature of the "I" observes it as a means of change...nothingness or point zero so to speak where this inversion nature of the "I" as a means of change is really one of change through inversion. The "I"'s nature of change as continually multiplying or dividing parts of itself and the environment around it (I may have to elaborate upon this point further) observes it as absent of any form as this change through inversion is really nothingness as the "I" being the inversion of unity into multiplicities as units which in themselves are unity and further unities into multiplicities as unit(y)(ies). This continually inversion, as continuous change, observes the 1 as continual change through inversion and hence 1 in itself...in these respects the "I" is everything through unity and nothing as continual change.
This nature of the "I" as both nothing and everything through change observes that nature of consciousness as one of mediation that varies according to the localized phenomena we observe.
Looking at the nature of consciousness, regardless of whether it is animal or human, a whole list of observations and potential questions arise.
The brain of the man and the brain of the wolf are seperate in the respect the brain of man has a larger variation of elements and mediates further perceptual realities than that of the man. The human brain may exist through the brain of the wolf and the wolf may exist through the human brain, but the human brain mediates further aspects of thought than the brain of the wolf...in these respects the human brain is greater because of its universality with this universality acting as a form of mediation in embracing all extremes while the brain of the wolf is limited.
So while the brain of the wolf may have certain predatory aspects that make it "percievably" better than the human's relative predatory aspects, the human brain has other facet's which override these predatory aspects if the predatory aspects of the human brain as not focused upon (through environment and action) as the wolf's.
This aspect of the "I" as means of change, or the degree in itself, necessitates the temporal or finite nature of the "I" as one that it is inherently quantitative in the respect its means of change through continual multiplication and division of realities effectively exists through the actualization of phenomena by localizing them into singularities, whether it be through more abstract in the respect the "I" multiplies or divides thought or rather physical in the respect it empircally multiplies or divides realities through the acts of eating or reproduction.
"I" is quantitative in the respect it is directed through time as time, with all number's as being founded through empirical "counting" observing fundmanetally a movement in time. If I observe "1" orange, I am observing "1" as fundamentally being a direction in time considering the "orange as 1" is an observation of the orange as a localization of change (considering the orange exists as change through growth and entropy) through the change of time.
Hence the act of quantification as observing limits through time exists as a folding process where time itself as 1 directional change is composed of further changes as multiple directions (considering the change of the orange as growth and entropy is composed of the relation of cells whose change exists because of the direction these cells are moving...movement exists through direction with direction as the means of change. Movement is active and direction is passive in these regards...however this point may have to be elaborated on further).
The "I" as quantitative in the respect it is temporal exist as 1 means of change where these different aspects of "I" as mind, body or spirit (emotion) observes that mind, body, spirit as 3 medians of change as one "I" and one "I" as 3 medians of change.
And that "actuality" exists through the means of thinking as thinking is an act...so is both "feeling" and "physical action" furthermore.
The "I" is merely an observation of singularization where what we percieve as the "I" is fundamentally 1 means of being which is composed of and composed further singularities of existence. In these respects the "I" is not just a qualitative understanding of reality but has inherent quantitative aspects.
What seperates the qualitative and quantitative nature of the "I" from the Human being or let's say the wolf, is it's mediation. Where the "I" of a man may both be composed of further "I"'s and composing further "I"'s the wolf main not contain or compose as many "I"'s.
This point may have to further elaborated upon...but I will address that point later if necessary as we are still left with the problem of consciousness as one of "degree" where the greater or lesser number of "I"'s determines the level of consciousness...in these respects the nature of consciousness as degree is still a facet of consciousness as the "degree" is merely a means of relation.
One could argue that a higher consciousness observes the degree, however a lower form still exists through these very same degrees...in these respects the consciousness as existing through degree is merely a degree in itself and the nature of consciousness as existing through degrees observes the consciousness as a mediator...the level of consciousness in these respects is less one of higher or lower but rather one of mediation as a point of origin. In these respects the "I" as consciousness exists as a means of change as continual relation with this continual relation as continual change observing the "I" as a median of change in itself...hence a constant.
This continual relative nature of the "I" observes it as a means of change...nothingness or point zero so to speak where this inversion nature of the "I" as a means of change is really one of change through inversion. The "I"'s nature of change as continually multiplying or dividing parts of itself and the environment around it (I may have to elaborate upon this point further) observes it as absent of any form as this change through inversion is really nothingness as the "I" being the inversion of unity into multiplicities as units which in themselves are unity and further unities into multiplicities as unit(y)(ies). This continually inversion, as continuous change, observes the 1 as continual change through inversion and hence 1 in itself...in these respects the "I" is everything through unity and nothing as continual change.
This nature of the "I" as both nothing and everything through change observes that nature of consciousness as one of mediation that varies according to the localized phenomena we observe.
Looking at the nature of consciousness, regardless of whether it is animal or human, a whole list of observations and potential questions arise.
The brain of the man and the brain of the wolf are seperate in the respect the brain of man has a larger variation of elements and mediates further perceptual realities than that of the man. The human brain may exist through the brain of the wolf and the wolf may exist through the human brain, but the human brain mediates further aspects of thought than the brain of the wolf...in these respects the human brain is greater because of its universality with this universality acting as a form of mediation in embracing all extremes while the brain of the wolf is limited.
So while the brain of the wolf may have certain predatory aspects that make it "percievably" better than the human's relative predatory aspects, the human brain has other facet's which override these predatory aspects if the predatory aspects of the human brain as not focused upon (through environment and action) as the wolf's.
This aspect of the "I" as means of change, or the degree in itself, necessitates the temporal or finite nature of the "I" as one that it is inherently quantitative in the respect its means of change through continual multiplication and division of realities effectively exists through the actualization of phenomena by localizing them into singularities, whether it be through more abstract in the respect the "I" multiplies or divides thought or rather physical in the respect it empircally multiplies or divides realities through the acts of eating or reproduction.