Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy is the assertion of definitions of terms.

In philosophy anyone can define their terms as a word is defined according to context.

Philosophers use the defined terms to create a chain of reasoning.

The chain of reasoning is generally for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc. In non-linear arguments an underlying pattern exists across seemingly seperate points.

Those convinced of a philosophy are so by degree of the appearance of reason...but the majority fail to see this reasoning for what it is: an appearance.

Now why is reasoning an appearance?

Because of the defined terms by which it began. In choosing infinite phenomena and infinite experiences the definition is a localizization of one possibly thing amidst the infinite. Even within innumberable finite phenomena the same situation occurs. To localize one assertion within infinite or innumerabley finite is to make the assertion appear by nature of being distinct.

There is no law by which one chooses the foundations of their argument. If there is a law, there is no law by or how to justify this law.

The foundation is baseless at best, beyond that the foundations and argument justify eachother through a circle, or the foundations lead to an infinite regress by which in finite time they are always changing or in the infinite expanse fundamentally indefinite.

Now because the foundations of philosophical arguments are mere appearance there is no substance other than intent for the intent manifested the foundational assertion..this leads to a subjective state where a treatise, is an expression of perception and less of truth where the nature of truth follows the same asserted definitional nature previously stated.

Philosophical treatises are a means of people influencing others to see things a certain way and yet fails to take into account that the distinctions required to make them what they are are dependent upon another viewpoint being wrong. To convince others by means of assertion requires antithetical assertions by which the presented assertion is distinct.

In simpler terms a philosophical system requires it being wrong from the standpoint of another respective system, so as to be distinct from the other that claims it is in error.

A universal philosophical system, by nature, is not within the nature of the system itself.

Now the context expands:

All forms of knowledge can be reduced to a philosophical nature for "the love of knowledge" occurs in many distinct intellectual fields.

++++

Given knowledge is by nature distinction, the act of knowing becomes the projection and reflection of distinctions, projection by assertion and reflection by assuming.

The act of distinction by knowing the distinction can be of any phenomena as any phenomena with the distinction of the context by which the foundational distinction occurs requiring knowledge as distinction through distinctions, distinctions within distinctions and distinctions out of distinctions.

The known distinction leads to further distinctions thus necessarily resulting in an inherent meta-ratio by which knowing and knowledge occurs.

Distinctions generally are for the most part rational...A leads to B leads to C...etc. In non-linear knowledge an underlying pattern exists across seemingly seperate distinctions thus necessitating seemingly seperate distinctions as nested within a broader one and thus rational as a set.

Those who know, know by degree of the appearance of ratios, of reason, and yet ratios/reason are but an appearance as these things are distinctions and by nature of appearance there is a translucent quality to distinctions as one is seen through another.

Experience is translucent:

1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.

2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.

3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.

4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.

5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries.

6. Order comes from spontaneity as it just appears. The impression that one thing appears from another is just an impression as one thing occurs then a different thing with this difference being a form of spontaneity. Connection between things only shows an absence of distinction between things thus leaving us only with differences and with this difference there is a spontaneity. Order requires symmetry and with symmetry an absence of distinctions. One thing leading to another thing is just continual spontaneity, due to difference, as the absence of distinctions required between symmetrical things leaves a nature of emptiness.

7. We assume order because one thing follows another yet it is this action of "one thing following another" that can be dually observed in reverse where anything can be observed as ordered if one thing follows another, yet in the nature of a raw spontaneity one thing follows another thus spontaneity can come before order. The observation of order is as spontaneous as the spontaneity that allows the one thing to be followed by another.

8. "The more things change the more they stay the same." With the continual change of a thing comes a transparency of boundaries as one thing is seen through another due to their connections. This transparency eliminates the boundaries into a conceptual unity as one distinctness leads to a further distinctness thus leaving distinctness as empty in itself as there is no comparison for it as that is all there is. In change one boundary results in another thus resulting in a transparent unity where paradoxically all things become one as they are connected by their very nature of having boundaries with one boundary being seen through another as one is connected to another. The transparency of things is the emptiness of things with this emptiness occurring by the inherent oneness things share due to an absence of distinction between boundaries (as all there is is boundaries) and one boundary leading to another thus leaving it as empty in itself.

9. To create a distinction requires a distinction between further distinctions thus one distinction leads to another with an inevitable ambiguity as to why there is a distinction to begin with and why there are distinctions to begin with. Distinction is thus spontaneous in nature as what we are left with is it appearing 'as it is' with a source in nothingness and an end in nothingness as the continuity of distinctions leaves us with an inevitable emptiness from which things 'just occur' considering this continuity of distinction is a paradoxical absence of distinction. This is considering the act of distinctions leading to further distinctions is a transparent self-referentiality as the self-ness of the distinctions has nothing beyond it but itself which in turn lends credit to the emptiness of said distinction(s) as there is no comparison beyond it/them. This emptiness of the distinction(s) is fundamentally a unity as the multiplicity of things share the same nature of being distinct and with this same nature of being distinct there is no distinction between said distinction. However to assume the opposite, that there is distinctions between distinctions is to observe a contradiction of the nature of distinction, through a self-opposition, in which case the nature of distinction self-negates thus leaving an absence of distinction that in turn result in the emptiness of unity.

10. "Thing" is an ambiguous term if all distinctions are things as distinction requires further distinction and this continuity results in an absence of beginning or end thus an absence of distinction. The ambiguity necessitates an absence of sense, an absence of distinction, as to what "thing" really means thus leaving "thing" paradoxically as "not a thing" or "no thing". This paradoxical nature leaves us with "thing" as fundamentally a see-through and clear term thus relegating knowledge, through this foundational term, as vacuous and illusive.


11. A boundary between boundaries necessitates the phenomenon of boundary as divided against itself thus a contradiction. Knowledge's requirement of boundaries is a requirement of contradiction with this contradictory nature emphasized within the observation that for every 'x perspective' there is a perspective of 'not x perspective'. Knowledge's grounding in contradiction, which results in further contradiction, results in knowledge being its own antithesis as it is the act of contradiction. Even then this contradiction contradicts itself thus leaving us with no contradiction, through a double negation (i.e. not not this or not not that), but with this absence of contradiction comes further contradiction as the absence of contradiction is to contradict contradiction. This senseless nature to knowledge makes it fundamentally transparent in the respect that the absence of sense is a formlessness and with this formlessness comes transparency.


12. Multiplicity alludes to being as transparent considering that with multiplicity one thing is seen through another under the nature of contrast. Unity alludes to being as transparent considering that which unity there is no separating distinctions between said things thus an absence of boundaries. Transparency is thus paradoxical and with this paradox comes a deeper nature of transparency given that the paradox results in a formless nature to truth.

13. Empirical senses put boundaries to the world and blind us as they manifest a thing to us by superficiality or strictly it just being an image. Only by sensing the empirical senses do we observe one thing leading to another thus a connection that induces a transparency as one thing occurs, and is sensed, through another. This is a transparency through contrast as one thing is seen through another only because it stands apart from another. This standing apart is a contradiction that occurs because of barriers. The contradiction of barriers, as one thing standing apart from another, results in a paradoxical transparent unity of things as boundaries occur through the standing apart from other boundaries (boundaries are sensed through further contrasting boundaries) as a boundary with this act of standing apart, which results from boundaries, being shared by all things.
This leaves us sense the nonsense of the empirical senses with this nonsense being the sense of a thing by what it is not through the act of one boundary, or thing, standing apart form another. The sensing of nonsense is the sensing of things through what it is not and this only occurs through the emptiness that results from the contradiction of things standing apart.

14. Change is the emptiness of things as one thing resulting in another is the manifestation of further distinctions from an inherent emptiness, which has no boundaries, given the new distinctions (resulting from change) have a said emptiness in themselves as they are dependent upon the contrast of further distinctions. This nature of distinction occurring through further distinction, as a comparison or contrast, necessitates a dependency upon continuous contexts that leaves an emptiness of selfhood. Change is emptiness and this emptiness is an absence of distinction through the continuum of further distinctions that leave the nature of distinction as fundamentally empty of meaning. Perpetual change is perpetual sameness as perpetual distinction has no comparison to make it distinct from itself. However if the phenomenon of distinction where distinct form itself it would no longer be distinct as to be distinct from distinction is no longer distinction, thus from this other angle distinction is also empty. There is no distinction between distinctions if one tries to encapsulate the nature of distinction within a squared rational framework, otherwise all there would be is distinction and this in turn would leave distinction meaningless as there is no comparison for it to occur unless a contradictory self-division of distinction comparing to itself takes place in which case anything can be said about distinction.

15. In infinite space every point is a center point but this leaves every other point not a center point (as there can only be one center point) thus every point is both a center point and not a center point thus leaving the point within infinite space non-sensical.

16. All repetition requires change as the act of repetition is the continuity of a thing through time and space with this continuity requiring gaps between the instance of one thing and its further appearance in another time and space. This gap necessitates repetition as an act of continual distinctions in time and space of said thing with, otherwise there would only be one instance of said thing with this one instance being formless as it would have no comparison to the other times and spaces through which this thing must repeat in order to gain an identity through relation. This repetition is thus dependent upon change with each new appearance of said thing no longer being the thing which supposedly reappears as the new time and space is the new thing. Repetition is cyclical thus has no beginning or end thus no distinction in one respect (as there is no beginning or end) while in another respect is perpetual differentiation as each new time and space is a new identity. Sameness and change are thus one.

17. Sameness is an absence of distinctions which separate things and perpetual distinction is an absence of distinction as there is no distinctions between distinctions if all there is is distinction. Dually from another angle to distinguish distinctions is to have the phenomenon of distinction negate itself through a self-opposition thus is paradoxically no longer distinction as it distinguishes away distinctions.

18. The continual renewal of things is the continual change of things with this continuity of change pointing to an inherent emptiness within the selfhood of all things, through a dependency upon further conditions, thus leaving a form of unity as this perpetual emptiness of selfhood has an absence of distinction that allows it to underlie all things.

19. We only understand things by ceasing our understanding of these very same things as understanding creates a barrier and with barriers comes separation and contradiction.

20. If it is a thing it will eventually become exhausted due to its relative nature as the continual dependency upon progressive contexts, through which it is observed, leaves an emptiness of it being a thing in itself. The more contexts required for a thing to be observed leaves it in a less and lesser state of appearing as a this in itself. This exhaustion in observation points to an emptiness and with this emptiness comes a nature of transparency.

21. The continual progression of a thing, through repetition, necessitates a thing coming from nothingness as the repetition of this thing results in little variations, little distinctions, that occur spontaneously as the thing progresses in time and space. The continual progression of a thing results in micro-variations and distinctions because of said differences in the time and space in which it occurs. The sameness of a thing that repeats occurs simultaneously to the little variations that manifests in each instance of its repetition thus manifesting a dualistic quality of being one and many things. Repetition results in spontaneity as the thing just appears, disappears in a relative gap, then just appears again. We only apply order to a series of events after they occur and yet if we withhold the judgement of this applied order we are left with a spontaneity; in another respect order 'just appears' thus necessitating further spontaneity.

Order is assumed but there is no groundings to it other than it being an applied quality that is artificial as it is created as a concept. Things just occur and the evidence of there being an order only occurs when we look at the continuity behind the change. However this continuity can be observed as spontaneous as well considering it just occurs as itself. We say order occurs because 'x leads to y which leads to z' but if reality only appeared as y then x and then z instead we would say it is also just as ordered because that is how it appears. Everything appears as ordered when there is nothing else to compare it to that would imply some other order from which to randomly choose from. Under these terms order is just appearance and appearance not only fades away with change, thus order following with it, but is spontaneous considering it just occurs then disappears.

To say everything requires order is strictly a statement of belief that paradoxically may not be orderly in itself as we cannot observe everything without resulting in broad generalities of being that effectively mean nothing due to infinite applications. To say everything is ordered is to may order meaningless, as it is without compare to other things, and self-contradicting, as it compares only to itself thus is self-dividing. Order just appears and this nature of 'just appearing' necessitates it as being its own opposite (that of disorder).

22. The totality of being is formless as it has no comparison, with comparison being required for form to occur through contrast (i.e. a standing apart), otherwise if it were to have comparison it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Comparable, or rather contrasting (i.e. standing apart), only to itself it is self-divided thus contradictory. Being formless it is translucent as the formlessness necessitates an absence of barriers and distinctions that would otherwise result in an inability to see through it. As one without comparison with nothing being beyond it, yet paradoxically self-divided through self-comparison, it is seen only through itself thus is radiant with any self-contrast through self-division occurring radiantly considering definition only occurs where light is present.

23. There is space inside a circle. There is space outside a circle. The inner and outer space is divided through the form of the circle with this form being space itself. Space is divided by space with this division being space itself; space is self-contradicting. The division of one space by another necessitates space as seen through another thus necessitating space as both transparent and illuminated. One form, i.e. space, seen through another is the standing apart of forms, i.e. spaces, that allows definition to take place. This "standing apart" necessitates a transparency in being as one thing cannot be seen except through another while dually the "standing apart" necessitates a radiance which is definition of forms in itself.

24. A previous order has to disintegrate so that a new order may occur with this new order being the adaptation of the old due to the introduction of new contexts and/or problems. It is this introduction of new contexts/problems that shows the previous order as having very little footing other than its strict existence as an appearance, in the respect it is observed 'just as is', with the new order having this same nature considering it will have to eventually dissolve under the necessity of further adaptation. The dissolution of an order for another order shows a certain spontaneity in which change of context, resulting in the aforementioned change of order, manifests as change producing further change in which order just emerges from randomness and that is it. It is spontaneous and thus as randomly occuring as the randomness from which it comes. Order becomes mere appearance as this emergent quality is its only observable grounding. In observing order we relegate it to nothing more than appearance or image; this nature shows order as fundamentally being flat or shallow as one order/appearance results in another, then another, so on and so forth with no end in sight as order becomes a self-referential string looped upon itself as order changes to further order. Order, under these terms, is meaningless. This loop of order changing into further order is just a meta-order that spontaneously appears thus grounding order in a quality of 'emergence' that is spontaneous and random considering it just occurs...and that is it; 'it' just occurs.

Order requires adaptation with adaptation existing only if something is introduced randomly for order cannot adapt to further order unless there was first a gap between said orders that first requires a contradiction or rather absence of order. Change separates one order from another thus making each order distinct from the other with this distinction of orders resulting in a level of assymetry between them which is synonymous to randomness and spontaneity. No two orders are exactly the same thus necessitating the groundings of order in 'disorder' and a paradox ensues from this. Order and disorder effectively blend as one, in the macro context, due to their co-dependent relationship thus leaving us with absurdity; yet in acknowledging this absurdity we rationalize an order definition of things, by calling them "absurd", thus it is absurd that there is absurdity. By pointing to disorder in things we only bring order to them by defining them under the term "disorder"; by pointing to order within things we only bring disorder to them by leaving the definition of "order" open ended in the respect that is requires self-evidence thus fundamentally subjective and subject to a multitude or interpretations that are distinctly different (what is 'ordered' to one individual is not always 'ordered' to another).

The spontaneity and randomness of order appearing can be evidenced by a series of square objects sharing the same form of the square with the square just appearing from nothing, it just appears; even in things with shared forms the general form just appears spontaneously. Order being grounded in further order results in an infinite regress where the succession of order just appears and as such is spontaneous and random thus contradicting its own nature at the meta-level. To believe order underlies all things is to make order meaningless as it has no compare to allow it to be distinct (thus no longer can 'order' be said to exist because of this indistinctness, and with this occurring to 'disorder' as well); to say order does not underlie all things is to result in a contrast of disorder and order that results in truth being grounded in contradiction and with it 'order' and 'disorder' as well.

25. In everything being different everything is the same by sharing the quality of 'standing apart' or rather 'distinctness'. In everything being the same everything is different as sameness requires multiplicity (i.e. a thing cannot be the same as itself without there first being multiple states which equate) and with this multiplicity comes distinctness due to differences in time and space, thus there is neither sameness nor difference.

26. The order of an event is ascribed only after the event occurs and as such it, i.e. the observation of order or the order itself, cannot be differentiated as either an actual objective state or a subjective interpretation. This reverse nature to order necessitates it as a projective quality with this projective quality coming from a spontaneous emergence from the observers in the respect it 'just appears'. Even from the perspective that this observation of order is not spontaneous, considering we measure one order relative to another, the nature of perception just "clicking", i.e. suddenly seeing the order, still necessitates a deeper spontaneity considering this "clicking" just emerges from nowhere the is perceptible. We only observe order from the observation of other orders, with orders beyond that and so forth, and yet order in its totality 'just appears' spontaneously, this spontaneity necessitates order as rooted in randomness. Ultimately any rational explanation is rooted in a subjective state that is irrational as drives and impulses, as well as subjective memories, influence it. This grounding in randomness, or spontaneity, and rationality makes order fundamentally transparent in the we respect we see order emerging from the observation of other orders (for example we see why x event occurred because of other similar events occuring and one event is seen through another. Another example is of the observation of the order the the sun rising and setting is through the other observations of times of the sun rising and setting). In other words the spontaneous emergence of order necessitates a transparent quality to order as one order is seen through another.

27. The space inside the circle is empty. The space outside the circle is empty. The circle itself is the emptiness between spaces. This is the nature of all forms.

28. With the highest of pleasures comes nothing beyond it but itself thus it is a state of meaninglessness.


29. All order occurs through symmetry and symmetry occurs through repetition with this repetition being the foundations of a cycle. All order is grounded in cycles with this cyclicality being a 'prison', in the most abstract of terms, as it 'contains' or rather is a 'container'.

30. All extremes in actions allows a person to stand apart as the imbalance, of the extremism, creates an asymmetry in which there is no similarity between that person an another. This extremism is the condition for a fragmentation of being, or rather observers, as said 'standing apart' results in a multiplicity of states as there is no unity through commonality. Only through balance, with balance occurring through moderation, does a person become transparent and without a self as this balance allows an embracement of the whole of all possible actions thus negating an identity with any one thing that stand apart but rather results in an identity with all things thus effectively nothing; the transparency of a person, through moderation, is the person being able to be seen within all facets of life as balance allows for all things to occur. The transparency of balance is the emptiness of being as balance results in a state of evenness in which one thing does not rise above or fall below another thus there is no 'standing apart' or distinguishment.

31. To master a thing is to make it indistinguishable from the self. This oneness of the person and the action is emptiness as the said lack of distinguishment is an absence of boundaries between the action(s) and the person. To master an action is to result in a state of emptiness where things occur with little to no hindrance.

32. The self is limited when one's happiness is conditioned upon things that require further conditions, in order to exist, as all conditioned things have a beginning and an end thus are limited.

33. To achieve balance is to achieve a state of emptiness as all things and there opposites neither rise above nor fall below eachother thus preventing any assymetry or 'standing apart'. This emptiness of balance allows the spontaneous emergence of all things as there is no distinctions or hindrances within it to prevent anything from occurring. Balance allows for all possibilities as well considering a thing and its opposite must occur; with all possibilities manifesting comes a transparent emptiness of things as one thing is seen through another as one thing is dependent upon another. Balance is emptiness as one thing does not stand apart from another thus negating distinctions.

++++

The translucent nature of distinctions in turn alludes to all distinctions being illuminating by virtue of appearance while being "see through" as one leads to another. "Translucence" is a quality, thus a distinction, thus necessitating distinctions bring light to other distinctions by virtue of the act of distinction, by distinction bringing light to further distinction one distinction is seen through another.

Given distinction brings light both empirically and symbolically, for empirical and symbolic light is how distinctions occur, the translucent nature of distinction results in light being inseperable from the knowing of consciousness by virtue of the making of distinction that both allows consciousness to occur and the distinction of consciousness through consciousness.