All Axioms Act as Points of Inversion, Hence are Non-Axiomatic
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:14 pm
All Axioms Act as Points of Inversion, Hence are Non-Axiomatic
As both self-maintained unity and progressive unit(s) the axiom observes a dualistic nature where its inversion between the one and many is non-axiomatic as an absence of axiom; which is conducive qualitatively to nothingness and quantitative 0 being a foundation of inversion from which the axiom as nothing is in itself inversive of other axioms through a self negation. The axiom as unity negates itself through the axiom as unit and the axiom as unit negates itself through the axiom as unity, where one inverts to the other as a relativistic positive or negative to the other when viewed as units. Or they exist as simple approximation of the other from a fixed unity. The axioms as a point of inversion, in the respect that the existence of one axiom is the non-existence of the other, observes the axiom as self-negating hence non-axiomatic at the same time in different respects. As inversive all axioms maintain a dual nature of randomness.
The nature of the axiom as inversive can be observed in the standard structure of not just abstract argument but through the physics of nature where what phenomena we deem as self-evident fundamentally multiply and divide into further phenomena which in themselves are axiomatic. In these respects what we understand of self-evidence is a change through inversion with this constant degree of change providing the boundaries of being itself under the axiom.
The axiom, as self-evidence with "self" observing the subjective nature of truth and "evidence" reflecting the objective nature of truth strictly as symmetry (considering all evidence is premised in the symmetry of events.), is effectively a point of inversion itself that effectively lacks structure due to its inherent inversive capacity of giving definition through multiplicity. However the axiom as truth effectively observes it objectively as a state of being in itself, hence a boundary or limit which gives presendence to the nature of reality considering objectivity is the self-negation of subjectivity and its inherently random state of undefinability.
Under these terms objectivity can be observed as having positive limits and subjectivity as having negative limits with the axiom maintain a dual nature of positive being and negative non-being (with non-being, or negation of being, still existing as being but a deficiency of it in the respect all negatives can be observed as a deficiency of positives through an inherent separation of them). The axiom as dually positive and negative in value observes in one respect as merely a point of inversion, through this dualism, and effectively absent of structure and any real form considering even the dualism of positive and negative is still a form of seperation between unity of structure and multiplicity as negation of unity hence structure.
In simpler terms the subjective and objective, which compose the axiom effectively are inverted from a unified state into one of multiplicity through the very same nature of the axiom and in these respects the axiom exists as synonymous both qualitatively and quantitatively to a zero dimensional point synonymous to "void". Under these terms, the axiom exists as having a fundamental spatial nature due to its inherent nature of existing through "limits".
We can observe the 0d point, through the line, as a means of inversion of one line or limit, into another line or limit, with inversion being a movement from unity into multiplicity. Dually we can observe multiplicity invert into unity considering the line as infinite 0d points still exists as a unified limit in itself as infinite change conducive to no-change.
The axiom as continual inversion, resulting in further axioms which invert through themselves, observes an inherent 0d dimensional nature to the axiom itself as it lack not just boundary and structure but effectively observes nothing and is nothing. The axiom, as a focal point of not just all arguments and logical constructs (ranging from philosophy to religion to science) but all empirically observed realities such as natural elements or artificially created implement, inverts itself into further axioms where the axiom, as a boundary of limit in itself conducive to the foundation of limits which compose reality as directed change, simultaneously inverts other axioms.
An example of this may simply be this sentence itself.
One may observe the axiom of "A" which forms the beginning of the sentence effectively invert into a seperate axiom of "n" or "An" into "example" where each letter or word as an axiom effecitively changes into another axiom by changing from a unified axiom into a seperate axiom (which necessitates a multiplicity of axioms).
This inversion of one into many observes the axiom as inversive being fundamentally founded upon a relation of parts where the axiom exists as a median of change due to its ability to invert. The continual inversion however is given limit by its inherent directional capacity where the inversion of one letter into another or one word into another effectively observes the letters being directed into letters (linearly) giving the foundation of the word and the word being directed to further words (linearly) given foundation to the sentence itself.
Now the example of inversion is not limited strictly to a geometry of grammar alone, but can be observed further through the inversion of one anything into multiplicity of anything. A philosophical school inverting into another philosophical school, religion to religion, science to science...or even the natural formation of elements or psychological states all observe a means of inversion where the axiom exists both as a subjective and objective reality with these realities inverting through eachother.
I may observe subjectively the nature of an objective element. The objective element may in turn change my subjective state (by giving me good or bad health). This in turn causes me to change my behavior to the objective element and change its state (for instance I may observe silver as having antibacterial properties so I change its physical structure so it fits appropriately in a water filter) which in turn changes the subjective state of my well being. The nature of inversion between the subjective and objective, mediated through the axiom, observes the axiom dually as a point of inversion so to speak.
One subjective state may invert to another subjective state through an axiom (such as sadness being bad, so I invert my emotions to happiness) or one objective state to another objective state (such as water inverting to gas or ice in form and function.
Either way the axioms as a focal point of subjective and objective measurement exists as a measuring qualitie effectively due to its inversive nature which is synonymous to a 0d point or void existing as a form of measurement through inversion.
This inversion quality of the axiom effectively observes that the axiom does not exist at all and a paradox ensues resulting in the solution of this inversive property of the axiom in turn inverts through itself, under its own terms, and exists simultanously in a different respect as a medial limit of being with the inversive property of the axiom only being observed through the axiom as a limit of being.
As both self-maintained unity and progressive unit(s) the axiom observes a dualistic nature where its inversion between the one and many is non-axiomatic as an absence of axiom; which is conducive qualitatively to nothingness and quantitative 0 being a foundation of inversion from which the axiom as nothing is in itself inversive of other axioms through a self negation. The axiom as unity negates itself through the axiom as unit and the axiom as unit negates itself through the axiom as unity, where one inverts to the other as a relativistic positive or negative to the other when viewed as units. Or they exist as simple approximation of the other from a fixed unity. The axioms as a point of inversion, in the respect that the existence of one axiom is the non-existence of the other, observes the axiom as self-negating hence non-axiomatic at the same time in different respects. As inversive all axioms maintain a dual nature of randomness.
The nature of the axiom as inversive can be observed in the standard structure of not just abstract argument but through the physics of nature where what phenomena we deem as self-evident fundamentally multiply and divide into further phenomena which in themselves are axiomatic. In these respects what we understand of self-evidence is a change through inversion with this constant degree of change providing the boundaries of being itself under the axiom.
The axiom, as self-evidence with "self" observing the subjective nature of truth and "evidence" reflecting the objective nature of truth strictly as symmetry (considering all evidence is premised in the symmetry of events.), is effectively a point of inversion itself that effectively lacks structure due to its inherent inversive capacity of giving definition through multiplicity. However the axiom as truth effectively observes it objectively as a state of being in itself, hence a boundary or limit which gives presendence to the nature of reality considering objectivity is the self-negation of subjectivity and its inherently random state of undefinability.
Under these terms objectivity can be observed as having positive limits and subjectivity as having negative limits with the axiom maintain a dual nature of positive being and negative non-being (with non-being, or negation of being, still existing as being but a deficiency of it in the respect all negatives can be observed as a deficiency of positives through an inherent separation of them). The axiom as dually positive and negative in value observes in one respect as merely a point of inversion, through this dualism, and effectively absent of structure and any real form considering even the dualism of positive and negative is still a form of seperation between unity of structure and multiplicity as negation of unity hence structure.
In simpler terms the subjective and objective, which compose the axiom effectively are inverted from a unified state into one of multiplicity through the very same nature of the axiom and in these respects the axiom exists as synonymous both qualitatively and quantitatively to a zero dimensional point synonymous to "void". Under these terms, the axiom exists as having a fundamental spatial nature due to its inherent nature of existing through "limits".
We can observe the 0d point, through the line, as a means of inversion of one line or limit, into another line or limit, with inversion being a movement from unity into multiplicity. Dually we can observe multiplicity invert into unity considering the line as infinite 0d points still exists as a unified limit in itself as infinite change conducive to no-change.
The axiom as continual inversion, resulting in further axioms which invert through themselves, observes an inherent 0d dimensional nature to the axiom itself as it lack not just boundary and structure but effectively observes nothing and is nothing. The axiom, as a focal point of not just all arguments and logical constructs (ranging from philosophy to religion to science) but all empirically observed realities such as natural elements or artificially created implement, inverts itself into further axioms where the axiom, as a boundary of limit in itself conducive to the foundation of limits which compose reality as directed change, simultaneously inverts other axioms.
An example of this may simply be this sentence itself.
One may observe the axiom of "A" which forms the beginning of the sentence effectively invert into a seperate axiom of "n" or "An" into "example" where each letter or word as an axiom effecitively changes into another axiom by changing from a unified axiom into a seperate axiom (which necessitates a multiplicity of axioms).
This inversion of one into many observes the axiom as inversive being fundamentally founded upon a relation of parts where the axiom exists as a median of change due to its ability to invert. The continual inversion however is given limit by its inherent directional capacity where the inversion of one letter into another or one word into another effectively observes the letters being directed into letters (linearly) giving the foundation of the word and the word being directed to further words (linearly) given foundation to the sentence itself.
Now the example of inversion is not limited strictly to a geometry of grammar alone, but can be observed further through the inversion of one anything into multiplicity of anything. A philosophical school inverting into another philosophical school, religion to religion, science to science...or even the natural formation of elements or psychological states all observe a means of inversion where the axiom exists both as a subjective and objective reality with these realities inverting through eachother.
I may observe subjectively the nature of an objective element. The objective element may in turn change my subjective state (by giving me good or bad health). This in turn causes me to change my behavior to the objective element and change its state (for instance I may observe silver as having antibacterial properties so I change its physical structure so it fits appropriately in a water filter) which in turn changes the subjective state of my well being. The nature of inversion between the subjective and objective, mediated through the axiom, observes the axiom dually as a point of inversion so to speak.
One subjective state may invert to another subjective state through an axiom (such as sadness being bad, so I invert my emotions to happiness) or one objective state to another objective state (such as water inverting to gas or ice in form and function.
Either way the axioms as a focal point of subjective and objective measurement exists as a measuring qualitie effectively due to its inversive nature which is synonymous to a 0d point or void existing as a form of measurement through inversion.
This inversion quality of the axiom effectively observes that the axiom does not exist at all and a paradox ensues resulting in the solution of this inversive property of the axiom in turn inverts through itself, under its own terms, and exists simultanously in a different respect as a medial limit of being with the inversive property of the axiom only being observed through the axiom as a limit of being.