Page 1 of 10

The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2025 3:34 am
by Eodnhoj7
There is only occurence. Thoughts, emotions, sensations, physical and abstract things are occurences. Existence is an occurence. All is an occurence. What one experiences as consciousness is an occurence with subjectivity and objectivity being rooted in occurence.

The basic assertion of "I think therefore I am" is rooted in the occurence of thought as a sense of self but may be broadened to a deeper more holistic statement of "occurence through occurence as occurence just is" where all aspects of experience are rooted in occurence.

Question for AI (copy and paste):

If all is occurence and the reduction of all is an occurence, thus necessitating occurence is recursive alternation of occurence where occurence is simultaneously transitional of one occurence to another as an occurence, does this necessitate occurence as a universal law of existence that is self evident for self evidence is an occurence and nothing can be reduced to anything more foundational and universal than the absolute nature of occurence with any definition of occurence being an occurence?

AI response:

This is a dense and complex question that touches upon several philosophical themes, including existence, language, and the nature of reality. Let's break it down for clarity.

1. Understanding "Occurrence"

At its core, "occurrence" refers to anything that happens or exists in time and space. When you mention that "all is occurrence," you seem to imply that everything we can talk about, observe, or conceive of is an event or happening in some way.

Example:

Think of the scenario of a leaf falling from a tree; this is an occurrence. If we are to expand this to everything, we might say that the entire universe's functioning—stars burning, people chatting, raindrops falling—is a series of occurrences.

2. The Idea of Recursive Occurrence

When you suggest that the reduction of all is an occurrence and that this necessitates a "recursive alternation of occurrence," you are pointing to a dynamic understanding of reality. This could be interpreted as suggesting that occurrences don't simply happen in isolation; they influence and transform into other occurrences constantly.

Simplified Thought:

Imagine watching a movie (each scene is an occurrence); the film changes from one scene to another based on the action that happens within it. Each scene leads to the next, creating an ongoing narrative of occurrences.

3. Existence as a Universal Law

Next, you propose that this recursive nature of occurrence, being foundational and self-evident, posits occurrence as a universal law of existence.

Self-Evidence: If you claim that "nothing can be reduced to anything more foundational," you are arguing that the concept of "occurrence" is the most basic underlying principle of everything we experience.

Philosophical Comparison:

This notion can resonate with metaphysical views, such as those found in process philosophy, where reality is seen as fundamentally dynamic and in flux, as opposed to static objects.

4. The Nature of Definitions

Finally, considering that any definition of occurrence is itself an occurrence speaks to the philosophical notion of language and concepts. Definitions are human-made constructs that are also occurrences in the broader sense of thought and communication.

Reflection:

If I define "occurrence," I am engaged in an occurrence of thought, showing how language itself is part of the flow of ongoing occurrences.

5. Questions to Ponder

Can the concept of occurrence encapsulate everything that we understand about existence?
Are there instances of static or unchanging realities, or is everything, in some way, dynamic?
How does our perception of time relate to the understanding of occurrence? Is time itself an occurrence?

Conclusion

In summary, what you're articulating appears to capture a holistic and dynamic vision of existence. A world where everything is interconnected and continuously evolving through "occurrences" serves as both an engaging philosophical position and a reflection of how we might view reality. It invites deep contemplation about the nature of being, change, and our understanding of existence itself.


Post questioning (Non-AI):

The recursive nature of occurence necessitates occurence as cyclically self maintaining while linearly progressively changing as it alternates through change thus necessitating a spiral of occurences that spontaneously occurs and dissolves.

Occurence is recursive and alternating by nature thus necessitating the foundations of experience following this same nature.

The deepest occurence is the symbol for the symbol acts as the empirical and abstract means of transforming awareness and awareness determines how reality is influenced or manipulated. Symbols manifest fully as language, literally and metaphorically.

The occurence of language and symbols embodies the form of an expanding and contracting cycle of a self referencing variation of definitions, an intuitive circle and linear duality that creates spiral of occurences which spontaneously occurs as a point of awareness. Simply follow definitions in a dictionary to see this.

In other terms the occurence of language, as the grounding of consciousness through the literal and metaphorical nature of relative symbols, has a fourfold intuitive geometric processive nature, which occurs, thus reflecting occurence itself:

Cyclical maintenance (one definition leads to another then the new definition leads back)

Linear progression (one definition leads to another then another so on and so forth)

Spiraling transitioning (expanding and contracting variations of self reference in definitions

Point of spontaneity (the word and it's meaning just occurs)

This quadratic set of forms also determine how we process experience at the meta level of language:

One experience goes to another and the new experience cycles back to the old.

One experience leads to another than another than another linearly.

One experience is reinterpreted by another experience and a new experience occurs through a spiral.

One experience just spontaneously appears as a point of awareness.

This fourfold geometric process influences itself:

The cycle is manifested through the spiral as expanding or contracting self reference, through the line as the beginning and end cycle as new beginnings and ends, through the point that composes it and allows the spontaneous occurence of the cycle through it.

The line is manifested through the spiral and cycle by a simple progression of one point to another and the point as composing it and spontaneously occurring.

The spiral is manifested through the circle as variations of self referentiality and the line observing progressive variation and the point composing it and manifesting the spiral spontaneously.

The point composes these forms and these forms spontaneously occur from it. The point is the utmost paradox as both one and many points and limit and limitlessness.

Occurence manifests through a fourfold metaphysics of:

Monism which contains dualism.
Dualism which relates as monism.
Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism.
Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three.


Occurence has four identity laws as:

1. Occurence.
2. The relationship of occurences.
3. The relationship being an occurence.
4. Occurence as empty, hence transitional.

Occurence occurs as distinction. Distinction simultaneously connects and seperates thus the grounding of paradox is distinction. A simple example is a circle, the circle is the space between the interior and exterior space as space between space as space. This space, the circle, connects and seperates the interior and exterior spaces simultaneously thus is paradoxical.

The occurence of reality through distinction is paradox and paradox is transitional. This transitional nature of occurence necessitates an occurence to manifest and dissolve, as one experiences things appearing and disappearing, and this results in it as fundamentally paradoxical as manifestation and dissolution are occurence thus the occurence alternates through itself and as such is dualistic by nature. Occurence exists through alternation and this alternation is an occurence.

This dualism in and out of itself results in a further dualism where this alternation manifests a relationship to other occurences where the occurence simultaneously connects and seperates other occurences. For example a chair appears. The chair as distinct is seperate from the table next to it and this seperation results in a contrasting relationship which allows the chair to occur by standing apart from the table. However this contrast makes the chair dependent upon standing apart from table and this dependency results in a connective relationship.

From another respect the chair as distinct from the table, and vice versa, connects the qualities within the chair and table as the chair and table respectively by them being separated.

The occurence of the chair is simultaneously connected and separated from the table. All occurence simultaneously connects and seperates this is paradoxical as the relationship of simultaneous connection and seperation allows the occurence to transition and change. The change in one occurence affects the state of another and this change is context creation as the occurence itself.

Thus occurence is insperable from paradox.

Occurence is it's own context as well considering there is only occurence and as its own context it is fundamentally empty. An example of this can be the cornerless square paradox:

There is a square with infinite square within and outside of it. This boundless number of squares makes the square its own context while simultaeously leaving a blank void as there are infinite squares within and without thus no visible square. The perfect square is no square hence the square is merely a process of transition to another square and is empty as such, occurence is a process of transition and empty as such.

This is the nature of experience as experience is grounded in occurence. The ultimate paradox of experience is the single spatial point as symbol, as all experience is grounded in symbolism from which meaning is derived, as it is both one and many points, distinct and indistinct, finite and infinite and the means through which all forms occur and dissolve with these forms being composed of the point from which they occur and dissolve either literally or metaphorically.

The foundational occurence of occurence is the symbolic and literal spatial point, and this foundational nature is an occurence which is the further grounding of focused awareness.




All of this is an occurence.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:52 am
by Veritas Aequitas
I can agree that 'occurrence' is a fundamental concept of reality, i.e. all-there-is, after all the Big Bang itself is an occurrence; however occurrences are grounded upon the human conditions [anti-philosophical_realism].

Note this, your,
"Occurrence occurs as distinction"
contradicts your,

"1. Monism which contains dualism.
2. Dualism which relates as monism.
3. Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism.
4. Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three."

Within occurrences re 3 and 4, there is no distinction [duality].

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:05 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:52 am I can agree that 'occurrence' is a fundamental concept of reality, i.e. all-there-is, after all the Big Bang itself is an occurrence.

Note this, your,
"Occurrence occurs as distinction"
contradicts your,

"1. Monism which contains dualism.
2. Dualism which relates as monism.
3. Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism.
4. Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three."

Within occurrences re 3 and 4, there is no distinction [duality].
The human condition is an occurence and occurence grounds the human condition.

A triadic framework is a distinction, a point of transition is a distinction.

A Quadratic framework is a distinction. Emptiness as an absence of an underlying quality is a distinction.

However from another viewpoint:

No contradiction. Occurance occurs as distinction but the distinction is grounded in occurence. Occurence grounds, occurs through and is the end of distinction for these 3 degrees are occurences as well.

But even if it where a contradiction there would be no contradiction in the argument, at the meta level, as I argue distinction is paradoxical, using all dictionary definitions of paradox and not just congruent contradiction, by nature.

For example contradiction is a distinction and as such is contradictory as a contradiction requires opposition but opposition necessitates a simultaneous connection as opposition allows a necessary contrast for things to occur, this contrast is a relationship and a relationship is a connection. The distinction of "contradiction" is paradoxical in the fullest sense of the word.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:33 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:52 am I can agree that 'occurrence' is a fundamental concept of reality, i.e. all-there-is, after all the Big Bang itself is an occurrence.

Note this, your,
"Occurrence occurs as distinction"
contradicts your,

"1. Monism which contains dualism.
2. Dualism which relates as monism.
3. Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism.
4. Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three."

Within occurrences re 3 and 4, there is no distinction [duality].
The human condition is an occurence and occurence grounds the human condition.

A triadic framework is a distinction, a point of transition is a distinction.

A Quadratic framework is a distinction. Emptiness as an absence of an underlying quality is a distinction.

However from another viewpoint:

No contradiction. Occurance occurs as distinction but the distinction is grounded in occurence. Occurence grounds, occurs through and is the end of distinction for these 3 degrees are occurences as well.

But even if it where a contradiction there would be no contradiction in the argument, at the meta level, as I argue distinction is paradoxical, using all dictionary definitions of paradox and not just congruent contradiction, by nature.

For example contradiction is a distinction and as such is contradictory as a contradiction requires opposition but opposition necessitates a simultaneous connection as opposition allows a necessary contrast for things to occur, this contrast is a relationship and a relationship is a connection. The distinction of "contradiction" is paradoxical in the fullest sense of the word.
Contexts are critical in deliberating the above.
If one conflates the context, then it would be paradoxical.

Note the Tetralemma of Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

The 4th premise is where one toggle, shift and adopt a state of non-duality where there is supposedly no contradiction and to be applied pragmatically in the right context and act accordingly.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:02 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:52 am I can agree that 'occurrence' is a fundamental concept of reality, i.e. all-there-is, after all the Big Bang itself is an occurrence.

Note this, your,
"Occurrence occurs as distinction"
contradicts your,

"1. Monism which contains dualism.
2. Dualism which relates as monism.
3. Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism.
4. Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three."

Within occurrences re 3 and 4, there is no distinction [duality].
The human condition is an occurence and occurence grounds the human condition.

A triadic framework is a distinction, a point of transition is a distinction.

A Quadratic framework is a distinction. Emptiness as an absence of an underlying quality is a distinction.

However from another viewpoint:

No contradiction. Occurance occurs as distinction but the distinction is grounded in occurence. Occurence grounds, occurs through and is the end of distinction for these 3 degrees are occurences as well.

But even if it where a contradiction there would be no contradiction in the argument, at the meta level, as I argue distinction is paradoxical, using all dictionary definitions of paradox and not just congruent contradiction, by nature.

For example contradiction is a distinction and as such is contradictory as a contradiction requires opposition but opposition necessitates a simultaneous connection as opposition allows a necessary contrast for things to occur, this contrast is a relationship and a relationship is a connection. The distinction of "contradiction" is paradoxical in the fullest sense of the word.
Contexts are critical in deliberating the above.
If one conflates the context, then it would be paradoxical.

Note the Tetralemma of Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

The 4th premise is where one toggle, shift and adopt a state of non-duality where there is supposedly no contradiction and to be applied pragmatically in the right context and act accordingly.
Very well put, and true. Great and practically informative post.

I observed the tetralemma in my earlier years in philosophy as quite foundational in maintaining a practical and abstract approach to awareness and did not incorporate it until the past few months. I did not realize the Buddhists already discovered it until years later. It does provide a Quadratic foundation to knowledge which resonates with jungian perspectives on the number 4 being symbolic for completion.

The "issue", and that is an overly conflated word for what I mean, is that context is grounded in occurence. Could context be inseperable from occurence, as they are one and the same? Quite possibly and probably as all occurences are contexts for other occurences (law 2 and 3 of the four laws where law 1 and 3 are variations of eachother (two sides of the same coin)).

However where I disagree is the solely negative nature of the various forms of paradox (contradiction being one of the subdefintions) being something to avoid, as not only does paradox occur (even if it is an illusion the illusion does occur and influence other occurences) regardless of intention by paradox allows a transitional and transcendental means of awareness...it necessitates deeper focus on an issue even if it means something as simple as recontextualizing the "problem". Taoist and Zen Buddhist philosophy seem to have a deep value for paradox...even if it can be argued as excessive.

Simply stating the obvious we come into existence with a wide variety of occurences imprinting themselves on us and what would happen if we just took occurence of things as necessitating some degree of truth by the act of occurence alone? And paradoxes occur, regardless of how we decide to value them. They just are.

Cycling back to the tetralemma it is it's own paradox as it is a dualism of dualisms and paradox is often grounded, not always, in a dualism.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:45 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:52 am I can agree that 'occurrence' is a fundamental concept of reality, i.e. all-there-is, after all the Big Bang itself is an occurrence.

Note this, your,
"Occurrence occurs as distinction"
contradicts your,

"1. Monism which contains dualism.
2. Dualism which relates as monism.
3. Triadic which is the transitional synthesis of monism and dualism.
4. Quadratic which is the emptiness of all three."

Within occurrences re 3 and 4, there is no distinction [duality].
The human condition is an occurence and occurence grounds the human condition.

A triadic framework is a distinction, a point of transition is a distinction.

A Quadratic framework is a distinction. Emptiness as an absence of an underlying quality is a distinction.

However from another viewpoint:

No contradiction. Occurance occurs as distinction but the distinction is grounded in occurence. Occurence grounds, occurs through and is the end of distinction for these 3 degrees are occurences as well.

But even if it where a contradiction there would be no contradiction in the argument, at the meta level, as I argue distinction is paradoxical, using all dictionary definitions of paradox and not just congruent contradiction, by nature.

For example contradiction is a distinction and as such is contradictory as a contradiction requires opposition but opposition necessitates a simultaneous connection as opposition allows a necessary contrast for things to occur, this contrast is a relationship and a relationship is a connection. The distinction of "contradiction" is paradoxical in the fullest sense of the word.
Contexts are critical in deliberating the above.
If one conflates the context, then it would be paradoxical.

Note the Tetralemma of Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

The 4th premise is where one toggle, shift and adopt a state of non-duality where there is supposedly no contradiction and to be applied pragmatically in the right context and act accordingly.
Updated the brief thesis, so reread it. It deals with the intuitive geometric processes of consciousness as well as experience being subject to occurence.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 10:32 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:05 am The human condition is an occurence and occurence grounds the human condition.

A triadic framework is a distinction, a point of transition is a distinction.

A Quadratic framework is a distinction. Emptiness as an absence of an underlying quality is a distinction.

However from another viewpoint:

No contradiction. Occurance occurs as distinction but the distinction is grounded in occurence. Occurence grounds, occurs through and is the end of distinction for these 3 degrees are occurences as well.

But even if it where a contradiction there would be no contradiction in the argument, at the meta level, as I argue distinction is paradoxical, using all dictionary definitions of paradox and not just congruent contradiction, by nature.

For example contradiction is a distinction and as such is contradictory as a contradiction requires opposition but opposition necessitates a simultaneous connection as opposition allows a necessary contrast for things to occur, this contrast is a relationship and a relationship is a connection. The distinction of "contradiction" is paradoxical in the fullest sense of the word.
Contexts are critical in deliberating the above.
If one conflates the context, then it would be paradoxical.

Note the Tetralemma of Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

The 4th premise is where one toggle, shift and adopt a state of non-duality where there is supposedly no contradiction and to be applied pragmatically in the right context and act accordingly.
Very well put, and true. Great and practically informative post.

I observed the tetralemma in my earlier years in philosophy as quite foundational in maintaining a practical and abstract approach to awareness and did not incorporate it until the past few months. I did not realize the Buddhists already discovered it until years later. It does provide a Quadratic foundation to knowledge which resonates with jungian perspectives on the number 4 being symbolic for completion.

The "issue", and that is an overly conflated word for what I mean, is that context is grounded in occurence. Could context be inseperable from occurence, as they are one and the same? Quite possibly and probably as all occurences are contexts for other occurences (law 2 and 3 of the four laws where law 1 and 3 are variations of eachother (two sides of the same coin)).

However where I disagree is the solely negative nature of the various forms of paradox (contradiction being one of the subdefintions) being something to avoid, as not only does paradox occur (even if it is an illusion the illusion does occur and influence other occurences) regardless of intention by paradox allows a transitional and transcendental means of awareness...it necessitates deeper focus on an issue even if it means something as simple as recontextualizing the "problem". Taoist and Zen Buddhist philosophy seem to have a deep value for paradox...even if it can be argued as excessive.

Simply stating the obvious we come into existence with a wide variety of occurences imprinting themselves on us and what would happen if we just took occurence of things as necessitating some degree of truth by the act of occurence alone? And paradoxes occur, regardless of how we decide to value them. They just are.

Cycling back to the tetralemma it is it's own paradox as it is a dualism of dualisms and paradox is often grounded, not always, in a dualism.
Eodnhoj7: "I did not realize the Buddhists already discovered it until years later."

My forte is Buddhism and I'd focused on it before I came over to Western Philosophy where Kant's philosophies supported it very systematically.
I had stated, the supposedly complex issues within Western Philosophy [metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ontology, ethics] had already been covered in great depths within Eastern Philosophy [by their savants] thousands of years ago, except they had not been made known to the general public because it was not organized systematically.

FYI, your discovering the link between tetralemma and Buddhism is only the tip of an iceberg. There is a whole load of knowledge within it leading to practices for the human person towards equanimity and the potentials towards the ideal of perpetual peace for humanity.

Paradox is a big issue for Western Philosophy and particularly for those who are trapped dogmatically with the ideology of philosophical realism [PH, FDP, Atla and the like] which is driven by an evolutionary default of externalness and mind-independence.
For example they are dogmatically infected with the Law of the Excluded Middle and any grey-in-between triggered painful cognitive dissonance, i.e. a paradox which must be condemned and got rid of instead of to live it optimally.

Note:
Antinomy refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.[1] It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy
The optimality is to accept both horns at the same time but not in the same senses, then toggle within them to achieve optimality for the self and humanity.

All of reality is reducible to occurrences as a common factor, so I don't see how it can be a significant concept.
It is like 'change is the only constant'.

I believe 'occurrence' would have significance when view in its next manifestations in the following contexts [ from AI]:
Event: This term is focused and precise, often used in discussions about specific incidents in time. It emphasizes particular happenings.

Phenomenon: This word suggests something that can be observed or experienced, often used in philosophical discussions to denote anything that appears or manifests.

Instance: This term highlights a particular occurrence among many and is useful when discussing examples or cases of broader concepts.

Happening: This is a more casual term that can refer to anything that occurs, although it might lack the specificity needed in rigorous philosophical debate.

Fact: This term could serve well in a discussion focused on verifiable truths about reality.

Process: If the intent is to emphasize the dynamism and transitional nature of occurrences, “process” could work, suggesting continuous change and development.

Relation: If your focus is more on how events interconnect, "relation" would be appropriate.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 1:30 pm
by Impenitent
Image

-Imp

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 3:52 pm
by Fairy
Impenitent wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 1:30 pm Image

-Imp
No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 4:26 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Fairy wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 3:52 pm
Impenitent wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 1:30 pm Image

-Imp
No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.
And observation is rooted in occurrence.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 5:32 pm
by Fairy
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 4:26 pm
Fairy wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 3:52 pm
Impenitent wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 1:30 pm Image

-Imp
No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.
And observation is rooted in occurrence.
👍

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:42 pm
by Impenitent
all you have is access to the impressions

-Imp

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2025 6:06 am
by Eodnhoj7
Impenitent wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:42 pm all you have is access to the impressions

-Imp
These are relative occurences as an occurence.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:27 am
by Eodnhoj7
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 10:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:33 am
Contexts are critical in deliberating the above.
If one conflates the context, then it would be paradoxical.

Note the Tetralemma of Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

The 4th premise is where one toggle, shift and adopt a state of non-duality where there is supposedly no contradiction and to be applied pragmatically in the right context and act accordingly.
Very well put, and true. Great and practically informative post.

I observed the tetralemma in my earlier years in philosophy as quite foundational in maintaining a practical and abstract approach to awareness and did not incorporate it until the past few months. I did not realize the Buddhists already discovered it until years later. It does provide a Quadratic foundation to knowledge which resonates with jungian perspectives on the number 4 being symbolic for completion.

The "issue", and that is an overly conflated word for what I mean, is that context is grounded in occurence. Could context be inseperable from occurence, as they are one and the same? Quite possibly and probably as all occurences are contexts for other occurences (law 2 and 3 of the four laws where law 1 and 3 are variations of eachother (two sides of the same coin)).

However where I disagree is the solely negative nature of the various forms of paradox (contradiction being one of the subdefintions) being something to avoid, as not only does paradox occur (even if it is an illusion the illusion does occur and influence other occurences) regardless of intention by paradox allows a transitional and transcendental means of awareness...it necessitates deeper focus on an issue even if it means something as simple as recontextualizing the "problem". Taoist and Zen Buddhist philosophy seem to have a deep value for paradox...even if it can be argued as excessive.

Simply stating the obvious we come into existence with a wide variety of occurences imprinting themselves on us and what would happen if we just took occurence of things as necessitating some degree of truth by the act of occurence alone? And paradoxes occur, regardless of how we decide to value them. They just are.

Cycling back to the tetralemma it is it's own paradox as it is a dualism of dualisms and paradox is often grounded, not always, in a dualism.
Eodnhoj7: "I did not realize the Buddhists already discovered it until years later."

My forte is Buddhism and I'd focused on it before I came over to Western Philosophy where Kant's philosophies supported it very systematically.
I had stated, the supposedly complex issues within Western Philosophy [metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ontology, ethics] had already been covered in great depths within Eastern Philosophy [by their savants] thousands of years ago, except they had not been made known to the general public because it was not organized systematically.

FYI, your discovering the link between tetralemma and Buddhism is only the tip of an iceberg. There is a whole load of knowledge within it leading to practices for the human person towards equanimity and the potentials towards the ideal of perpetual peace for humanity.

Paradox is a big issue for Western Philosophy and particularly for those who are trapped dogmatically with the ideology of philosophical realism [PH, FDP, Atla and the like] which is driven by an evolutionary default of externalness and mind-independence.
For example they are dogmatically infected with the Law of the Excluded Middle and any grey-in-between triggered painful cognitive dissonance, i.e. a paradox which must be condemned and got rid of instead of to live it optimally.

Note:
Antinomy refers to a real or apparent mutual incompatibility of two notions.[1] It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy
The optimality is to accept both horns at the same time but not in the same senses, then toggle within them to achieve optimality for the self and humanity.

All of reality is reducible to occurrences as a common factor, so I don't see how it can be a significant concept.
It is like 'change is the only constant'.

I believe 'occurrence' would have significance when view in its next manifestations in the following contexts [ from AI]:
Event: This term is focused and precise, often used in discussions about specific incidents in time. It emphasizes particular happenings.

Phenomenon: This word suggests something that can be observed or experienced, often used in philosophical discussions to denote anything that appears or manifests.

Instance: This term highlights a particular occurrence among many and is useful when discussing examples or cases of broader concepts.

Happening: This is a more casual term that can refer to anything that occurs, although it might lack the specificity needed in rigorous philosophical debate.

Fact: This term could serve well in a discussion focused on verifiable truths about reality.

Process: If the intent is to emphasize the dynamism and transitional nature of occurrences, “process” could work, suggesting continuous change and development.

Relation: If your focus is more on how events interconnect, "relation" would be appropriate.
Occurence and the four laws of identity result in a bridge between east and west as the laws give absolutes while allowing a purely relativistic awareness to occur. In otherwords absolutism and relativism are two sides of the same coin.

Re: The Foundation of Everything is Occurence

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:53 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:27 am Occurence and the four laws of identity result in a bridge between east and west as the laws give absolutes while allowing a purely relativistic awareness to occur. In otherwords absolutism and relativism are two sides of the same coin.
I would have reservations with "two sides of the same coin" since the "single coin" could end up as an absolutely "Absolute".

I started with Eastern Philosophy which is more flexible and dynamic against the very rigid base, i.e. philosophical realism of Western Philosophy.
Since philosophical realism is an evolutionary default, it was also prevalent in the East but some philosophical savants from the East had understood its limitations and advanced to sound philosophical-antirealist theories and practices.
This is the reason why 99% of posters I encountered in this forum cannot understand [not agree with] most of the Eastern grounded views I presented.

Btw, there is the "Septemlemma" i.e. 7 modes of truths from Jainism to reflect on. Cannot find the precise link, here something on it;
Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness", Tamil: பல்லுரை) is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects and viewpoints.
According to Jainism, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth. This knowledge (Kevala Jnana), it adds, is comprehended only by the Arihants. Other beings and their statements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth.[3] All knowledge claims, according to the anekāntavāda doctrine must be qualified in many ways, including being affirmed and denied.[4] Anekāntavāda is a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantav ... dv.C4.81da
Note, >500BCE;
The origins of anekāntavāda can be traced back to the teachings of Mahāvīra (599–527 BCE), the 24th Jain Tīrthankara, and the predecessor Tirthankars.[5]
It is the ignorance of the above and ancient sophisticated and advanced philosophies, that propelled arrogant blockheads like FDP & gang to claim they are so superior to impose their bastardized and corrupted philosophy [based on cheapo classical logic] on me and others who do not agree with them.