Philosophy Now Forum

1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.
2. This degree covers a part of being.
3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.
4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.
5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.
6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.
7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.
6. Relational truths mean nothing.

Eodnho,

It sounds like your into general systems theory, interesting stuff. From my own limited understanding of systems theory I believe that all things are relational, nothing is in existence in and of itself but contingent upon the totality, the whole. Of course, we do not known where the whole ends or if it's complete, for it is unknown whether the universe itself is a closed system or not. indeed what we think of as our universe might be but one part as a whole, anyway I am kind of glad you broached the topic, could be a most interesting thread.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 6. Relational truths mean nothing.

If it can be thought, it is relational, so you are correct that relational truths mean nothing. But why stop there? All thinking is non-sense and has no basis in Reality. We spin our own fictions on a personal and societal level.

What's particularly interesting about the times we live in is to watch all the societal "truths" dis-integrate before our eyes.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 10:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.
2. This degree covers a part of being.
3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.
4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.
5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.
6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.
7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.
6. Relational truths mean nothing.

Eodnho,

It sounds like your into general systems theory, interesting stuff. From my own limited understanding of systems theory I believe that all things are relational, nothing is in existence in and of itself but contingent upon the totality, the whole. Of course, we do not known where the whole ends or if it's complete, for it is unknown whether the universe itself is a closed system or not. indeed what we think of as our universe might be but one part as a whole, anyway I am kind of glad you broached the topic, could be a most interesting thread.

Context is contigent on context thus context self-references leading to a singularity. This singularity is obscure and unable to be sensed given there is nothing to compare it too.

simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 6. Relational truths mean nothing.

If it can be thought, it is relational, so you are correct that relational truths mean nothing. But why stop there? All thinking is non-sense and has no basis in Reality. We spin our own fictions on a personal and societal level.

What's particularly interesting about the times we live in is to watch all the societal "truths" dis-integrate before our eyes.

Ahhh but that is another paradox as to say "all thinking is nonsense" is a thought....you see the dilemma I am in?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:13 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 6. Relational truths mean nothing.

If it can be thought, it is relational, so you are correct that relational truths mean nothing. But why stop there? All thinking is non-sense and has no basis in Reality. We spin our own fictions on a personal and societal level.

What's particularly interesting about the times we live in is to watch all the societal "truths" dis-integrate before our eyes.

Ahhh but that is another paradox as to say "all thinking is nonsense" is a thought....you see the dilemma I am in?

Of course. This is why you have to use your thinking selectively keeping in mind what it can deliver [in many cases, not too much, but in others, enough to keep you alive for another day].

Eodnho

Context is contigent on context thus context self-references leading to a singularity. This singularity is obscure and unable to be sensed given there is nothing to compare it too.
[/quote]

Eodnho,
Could you expand on this? As it stands, I am a bit mind boggled.

simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 1:13 am

simplicity wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:01 am
If it can be thought, it is relational, so you are correct that relational truths mean nothing. But why stop there? All thinking is non-sense and has no basis in Reality. We spin our own fictions on a personal and societal level.

What's particularly interesting about the times we live in is to watch all the societal "truths" dis-integrate before our eyes.

Ahhh but that is another paradox as to say "all thinking is nonsense" is a thought....you see the dilemma I am in?

Of course. This is why you have to use your thinking selectively keeping in mind what it can deliver [in many cases, not too much, but in others, enough to keep you alive for another day].

To select accuracy of one context is to result in the surrounding contexts being obscure....another paradox I am facing lol.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 9:38 pm Eodnho

Context is contigent on context thus context self-references leading to a singularity. This singularity is obscure and unable to be sensed given there is nothing to compare it too.

Eodnho,
Could you expand on this? As it stands, I am a bit mind boggled.
[/quote]

Well to observe my dilemma from another angle:

1. There is a single context; this context is the embodiment of phenomena.

2. This single context stands as definite given it is in comparison to another context.

3. One context is defined through another context, because of contrast (ie the sun is seen because of the surrounding sky), yet this group of contexts as a group is a singular context (ie "contrast" is an embodiment of the relations of a set of phenomena therefore is a context; the sun and sky is an embodiment of the sun and sky) thus stands in contrast to another context (ie the sun and sky is seen because of the ground).

4. One context exists through another context, and as a group of contexts is a context which exists relative to another context. This context through context as a context is continuous.

5. Because context exists through context as a context, what is the embodiment of one group of phenomena (the sun) is embodied through another group of phenomena (the sky) and this embodiment of embodiment is an embodiment (sun and sky relative to the ground)

6. This results in a loop of phenomena because these phenomena share the same nature of containing phenomena; context through context as a context is a container through another container as a container. All phenomena are contexts within contexts as containers with containers.

7. This same nature of embodiment, which all phenomena share, is the same nature of context, which all phenomena share. Because embodiment/context is contingent (dependent upon) upon another embodiment/context the nature of embodiment/context, which underlies all things, references itself.

8. Because the quality of embodiment/context is self referential there is nothing to compare it to other than itself and this comparison to itself results in a sameness. This self-referentiality, resulting in sameness, has no distinctions resulting from contrasting differences. This absence of differences/contrast(s) leads to an absence of definition thus is indefinite.

9. Self-referentiality is an indefinite state and context through context as context is complete self-referentiality.

I'll work on this awhile, might you be able to replace context with condition, conditions.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:40 am I'll work on this awhile, might you be able to replace context with condition, conditions.

Yep.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

Hyperbole reduces what you say to mush.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

Hyperbole reduces what you say to mush.

Hyperbole is a relational truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:07 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:19 pm 1. An angle of observation is the degree through which a being is observed.

2. This degree covers a part of being.

3. This part is a whole, in itself, given it is a totality of said specific part; ie a part is its own whole as it stands apart as a singular entity.

4. As a whole this part is complete on its own terms.

5. However anything existing on its own terms is empty given no contrast through comparison occurs thus resulting in an absence of identity.

6. The whole is empty as the individual part, as its own whole, is empty.

7. To speak of an "angle of observation" is to speak of nothing; it is nonsensical.

6. Relational truths mean nothing.

Hyperbole reduces what you say to mush.

Hyperbole is a relational truth.

Rubbish.

Its just a smart word for hysterical exaggeration.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:36 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 12:07 pm

Hyperbole reduces what you say to mush.

Hyperbole is a relational truth.

Rubbish.

Its just a smart word for hysterical exaggeration.

Hysterical is a relative observation as what is hysterical to one angle of perception is not hysterical to another angle of perception. Dually "smart word" is the relationship of "smart" to that of "word" thus relative.