Philosophy Now Forum

Form is constant and it in itself is intrinsically empty given upon closer inspection nothing is there except a series of further forms. A form is a median to further forms where one form inverts to many. This points to all forms as intrinsically empty thus nothing. This leads to the question of "what is nothing?" Nothing is not a thing in itself but a relationship between parts. For example an empty cup points to the relationship between a liquid and a cup. The emptiness is an absence of a specific relation, ie that which lacks something. In this case the liquid in the cup. Void is not a thing on itself thus is self negating. Only being exists.

The void voids itself and is expressed only as being. This being in turn is voided into multiple beings resulting in the relationship between parts thus necessitating being as have a dynamic state where it moves itself through itself through void. For example the liquid can only be poured into the cup if the cup is empty, the emptiness allows for the relationship between water and cup, and their subsequent movements to occur.

Simultaneously this void acts as the intrinsic curvature which allows for the cup and water to have distinct properties. Looking at water in a cup, one can see the distinct curvature of both the cup and the water as intrinsically empty yet it is the boundary line which allows for this aforementioned distinction. Another example of this is the line between the half full cup and the air, the line maintains the definite properties between the air and water yet is intrinsically empty.

Void, as the relationship between parts, is both the emptiness of a specific phenomena and is the curvature which allows for definition. How this applies through a theory where all is a simulation, or an illusion, is that being in its totality is directed through itself as itself through the void. The imaginary, or rather illusive nature of reality, reflects void acting much like a barrier. This barrier is the multiplicity of phenomena which in turn acts as a means of approximation in a manner where the "whole" or the "all" is only observed in parts. This absence of a perceivable, yet existing, whole is the masking of the "One" through the "Many".

Nothingess is the absence of "a thing in itself" thus necessitating all phenomenon are intrinsically empty in themselves except through another phenomenon. One phenomenon does not exist except through another thus is void on it's own terms as a distinct phenomenon.

To say something is distinct is to mark it as a point of change. For example if a deer exists distinctly in a field it is an observation of a point of change in the observation of the field to something else entirely. The distinct object exists in contrast to another phenomenon with this contrast necessitating a change from one phenomenon into another. It is this change through contrast which necessitates all phenomenon as fundamentally nothing in themselves where what is distinct being equivalent to a point of change in which one phenomenon is observed through another but not as a thing in itself.

What you say about form seems about correct but what you say about emptiness and the void suggests you're trying to re-invent the wheel never having seen one. I would suggest reading Nagarjuna, or perhaps a book by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso called 'The Sun of Wisdom' - which explains the theory of emptiness.

Kant saw the emptiness of form and phenomena since it is revealed by analysis, but to see what it means is more difficult and requires some grasp of the Perennial philosophy, which is to say the whole of philosophy and not just the strangely limited topic taught by our universitites.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:24 pm What you say about form seems about correct but what you say about emptiness and the void suggests you're trying to re-invent the wheel never having seen one. I would suggest reading Nagarjuna, or perhaps a book by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso called 'The Sun of Wisdom' - which explains the theory of emptiness.

Kant saw the emptiness of form and phenomena since it is revealed by analysis, but to see what it means is more difficult and requires some grasp of the Perennial philosophy, which is to say the whole of philosophy and not just the strangely limited topic taught by our universitites.

Nothing is observed in the individual entity given everything is empty in and of itself and is observed only through the contrast with something else. A thing in itself does not exist thus is void on its own terms; a phenomenon is defined by another phenomenon.

Dually nothing is an absence of some relationship with some other phenomenon where the phenomenon:

1. Ceases a relationship with some other phenomenon thus is empty of that phenomenon.

2. Because it is absent of relations with another phenomenon the phenomenon in and of itself is empty.

3. The phenomenon as absent of relationship is empty in itself and absent of said relationship thus nothing is two fold: The phenomenon in itself is empty and dually the phenomenon is empty of a relationship with another phenomenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:59 am Nothing is observed in the individual entity given everything is empty in and of itself and is observed only through the contrast with something else. A thing in itself does not exist thus is void on its own terms; a phenomenon is defined by another phenomenon.

And it follows that ...

I was pointing out that your observation about emptiness and form leads to a successful fundamental theory. It is insightful and important but just a beginning.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:59 am Nothing is observed in the individual entity given everything is empty in and of itself and is observed only through the contrast with something else. A thing in itself does not exist thus is void on its own terms; a phenomenon is defined by another phenomenon.

And it follows that ...

I was pointing out that your observation about emptiness and form leads to a successful fundamental theory. It is insightful and important but just a beginning.

This results in a principle of explosion sequence that is the grounding for both math and logic:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29696

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:41 pm This results in a principle of explosion sequence that is the grounding for both math and logic:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29696

Have you read Laws of Form by George Spencer Brown? He provides a calculus that describes the process.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:41 pm This results in a principle of explosion sequence that is the grounding for both math and logic:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29696

Have you read Laws of Form by George Spencer Brown? He provides a calculus that describes the process.

No, have not heard of him. There is a paradox within the use of any logical method given the method is the progression and cycling of assumptions. This progression and cycling of assumptions necessitates logic as falling under certain forms, with forms to be taken in a literal sense as shapes:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27233

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:48 pmNo, have not heard of him. There is a paradox within the use of any logical method given the method is the progression and cycling of assumptions. This progression and cycling of assumptions necessitates logic as falling under certain forms, with forms to be taken in a literal sense as shapes:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27233

Brown presents a formal calculus that might interest you. He proposes the use of imaginary numbers to get around the problem.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:48 pmNo, have not heard of him. There is a paradox within the use of any logical method given the method is the progression and cycling of assumptions. This progression and cycling of assumptions necessitates logic as falling under certain forms, with forms to be taken in a literal sense as shapes:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=27233

Brown presents a formal calculus that might interest you. He proposes the use of imaginary numbers to get around the problem.

Do you have a link?

All numbers are imaginary given they are that which gives image to a phenomenon. For example in dividing an orange into 3 parts, we take the number 3 and project it onto the orange. The orange in turn takes the form of the number 3 and gives image to it. In one respect 3 gives form to the orange and the orange gives form to 3. One form projects to another form and a recursion occurs.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:48 pm
Do you have a link?

This is a useful one, but there are many more. http://www.enolagaia.com/GSB.html

Bear in mind that many commentators do not grasp the meaning of Brown's calculus. For instance, his colleague Russell praised the calculus but his dislike of mysticism led him to entirely miss the point of it.

The writings on Brown by Robin Robertson, chair of the US Jungian Society, may also be useful. https://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/Robertson-GSB.pdf

PeteJ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 7:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:48 pm
Do you have a link?

This is a useful one, but there are many more. http://www.enolagaia.com/GSB.html

Bear in mind that many commentators do not grasp the meaning of Brown's calculus. For instance, his colleague Russell praised the calculus but his dislike of mysticism led him to entirely miss the point of it.

The writings on Brown by Robin Robertson, chair of the US Jungian Society, may also be useful. https://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/Robertson-GSB.pdf

I cannot seem to get access to his particular works relative to his calculus....never mind, I found them.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:00 pm I cannot seem to get access to his particular works relative to his calculus....never mind, I found them.

Opinions vary wildly on the value of his work, so expect to read some conflicting accounts. I believe he solves metaphysics and describes the world correctly. I would not agree that his description requires a modification of ordinary logic, as he proposes, but that quibble apart I share his view. His calculus describes the logic of 'non-dualism' and a neutral metaphysical position.

Personally I cannot grasp the formal details of his calculus, but I know what he's getting at.

.