Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Presented Argument:

1) Everything we understand of reality is both composed of and composes space; this in turn equates "being" as space folding upon itself. In this respect all "being" is composed of or composes geometric solids. (It must be noted that Geometry is equivalent to the study of space. I am not arguing for or against strict Euclidian, etc.)


2) What we understand of stable geometric solids is strictly a reflection of points. For example 2 points reflect and we observe a line, 3 points reflect and we observe a triangle, etc.

3) What we understand of moving geometric solids is strictly point's relating to eachother. For example, a triangle continually morphing into various other triangles is defined by points and their movements as relations to one another.

4) In observing the nature of abstract geometric structures as stable and physical geometric structures as moving, we can observe that space breaks down to a duality of "stable space" and "unstable/moving" space.

5) These dual natures of space, as stability and movement, observe the question: "What happens when an immovable object meets and unstoppable force?". Considering that the polarity of forces expressed through a duality are prone to movement over eachother, a third aspect of space occurs: A synthesis resulting in neutrality.

6) This neutral point is the synthesis of the point as both stable and fluxing as a "limit" (which both provides order and ceases order through the establishment of "boundaries") and possible limit (which is strictly limits that exist as possibility only). In these respects neutral space reverts back to a positive value as existing limit, and a negative value as a deficiency in existence as possibility.

7) All physical and abstract existence breaks down to three "spaces": Reflective Stable Space, Relative Fluxing Space, Synthetic Neutral Space. In this respect all "truth" has elements of consistency, change, and neutrality as spatial properties. In this respect all concepts have a geometric nature to them.


Agree, disagree, don't know? Explain why.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Impenitent »

starting from the point and expanding outward to an infinite number of equidistant points (from the starting point) within the same plane sounds circular to me...

progress indeed

-Imp
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Impenitent wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:35 pm starting from the point and expanding outward to an infinite number of equidistant points (from the starting point) within the same plane sounds circular to me...

progress indeed

-Imp
And it provides stability. You get the best of both worlds.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by -1- »

Up to and including point 4 you talk about points in space. In point 5 you all of a sudden introduce "unmovable object" and "unstoppable force". Where do these come from, in terms of points in space? They have no sufficient origin or reason to be there given the (implied) axioms you had first layed down: Everything is a reflection of points.

"Considering that the polarity of forces expressed through a duality are prone to movement over eachother,"

So two or more things are moving over each other, but what are these things? According to the sentence, they are polarity of forces. Are you talking about Newtonian "equal and opposite forces", or about independent forces? A polarity? You completely lost me there.

"a third aspect of space occurs: A synthesis resulting in neutrality." ??? What is neutrality? A lack of movement? a lack of points? It is neutral in what sense and related to what else?

What you have presented in point five makes patently no sense. You need to explain it in greater detail.

In points 6 and 7 you introduce more and more concepts that have nothing to do with anything else. None that would be clear from your explanation.

Maybe I should ask Impenitent, since he or she talks as if the original post made sense, and he or she understands that sense.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

An unmovable object is stable space. An unstoppable force is unstable or "fluxing" space. The question was strictly both an example and point of reference.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by -1- »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:31 pm An unmovable object is stable space. An unstoppable force is unstable or "fluxing" space. The question was strictly both an example and point of reference.
Thanks, JohnDoe7. I learned from your explanation when I asked for it in another thread that your theories do have merit, but your descriptions of them is rather scanty, and you do give too much credit to your reader's ability to follow your line of thought.

It would be much more beneficial to the reader for his or her understanding if your steps in your treatment of your topics were much smaller. You take giant leaps; I don't believe any human can follow your line of thinking as you wrote them down. It is not the same as to say they have no merit; it is to say that the merit is lost to the reader or to readers like me, who can't understand a word you say.

Your example of explaining the other theory to me was a brilliant indication that you are capable to write in human-understandable format and style. Why not pursue that right from the beginning? Why put out these quizzical miasma of word salads?

Granted they are not word-salads to you. But they are to me, until you come along and explain in greater details what you meant to say in the first place.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

-1- wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:31 pm An unmovable object is stable space. An unstoppable force is unstable or "fluxing" space. The question was strictly both an example and point of reference.
Thanks, JohnDoe7. I learned from your explanation when I asked for it in another thread that your theories do have merit, but your descriptions of them is rather scanty, and you do give too much credit to your reader's ability to follow your line of thought.

It would be much more beneficial to the reader for his or her understanding if your steps in your treatment of your topics were much smaller. You take giant leaps; I don't believe any human can follow your line of thinking as you wrote them down. It is not the same as to say they have no merit; it is to say that the merit is lost to the reader or to readers like me, who can't understand a word you say.

Your example of explaining the other theory to me was a brilliant indication that you are capable to write in human-understandable format and style. Why not pursue that right from the beginning? Why put out these quizzical miasma of word salads?

Granted they are not word-salads to you. But they are to me, until you come along and explain in greater details what you meant to say in the first place.
Thanks for the compliment and legitimate advice. It is a processing I am working on, or maybe a habit I am trying to form.

In all frankness, most of the above appears in images of waves, curves, dots, and shapes that I have to translate into words. That is why the abstract presentation. You are right about the practical examples. It "enhances" the multidimensionality of the argument.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Viveka »

This brings me a bit closer to understanding your mode of thought. I echo -1- in both of his posts, as I would have asked and said the same. Sorry for the 'brainwashing' bit, I just hate to see bright minds corrupted by the influence of numerology.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can Geometry Enable Philosophy to Progress Further?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Viveka wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:41 pm This brings me a bit closer to understanding your mode of thought. I echo -1- in both of his posts, as I would have asked and said the same. Sorry for the 'brainwashing' bit, I just hate to see bright minds corrupted by the influence of numerology.
Space, to be precise. Take for instance, looking at a flower or animal. The flower or animal is a thing in itself. However it is composed of points, and curves, which form the "structure" we observe as "being". I understand that structure by observing how it relates through space as space.

I would argue we all do this, even at an emotional level. Considering emotions are both formless and formed (joy and anger differ through boundaries) they manifest an "emotional" degree of space that manifests a geometry...or maybe "neo-geometry" if viewed as structures in themselves.

Whether intellectual, spiritual, or physical what we understand of reality is structures and their interjoining with other structures...this is definition...this is reason.

In these respects Philosophy is an understanding of definition.
Post Reply