Page 1 of 1

### Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:31 am
Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

What we understand of unity is fundamentally a "Holism" where there is no absence but rather what exists, exists as 1 in both quantity and quality as space. It is within this nature of unity the observation of structure is observed merely as “space through curvature through symmetry” with the curvature as symmetry being composed of point(s) (which in themselves are dimensional space). What we understand of structural symmetry is merely curvature produced through the inherent mirror effect of “point(s)” as space.

This mirror effect is inseparable from space itself, and can be argued as space itself as space is fundamentally “point” in its simplest form as “dimension”(either 1 or 0). From this structural symmetry, as mirroring space, unity manifests itself as a totality of being through a 1 dimensional point self-reflecting ad-infinitum.

It is in observing the symmetry of a structure that multiplicity takes place as a form of individuation where symmetry as curvature is separated into an individual element. This act of individuation, can be observed as the 1 dimensional point reflecting the -1 dimensional line (which composes the approximate nature of the 1 dimensional point) as a zero dimensional point as this is an absence of reflection.
(1∂ ≡ -1∂) → 0∂ → 1D ≜ ∫(0∂,0∂)

The zero dimensional point, as unstable and not a thing in itself, exists as a “particulate” or individuate unit of division that exists if and only if it divides, and it divides if and only if it relates. The zero dimensional point in turn relates through the 1 dimensional line, as both interjoined to and an inversion of the -1 dimensional line.
(-1∂ ⋈ 1D) ≜ ∫(0∂,0∂)

This inversion of stability through the mirror effect exists as “relation” or “movement” as an approximation of the reflective stable space which composed the 1 intradimensional point. In these respects it may be observed that Reflective space as the 1 intradimensional causal point mirroring itself ad-infinitum equates to an “Ethereal Space” that manifests simultaneously as a product Relativistic “moving/fluxing” space as the relations of zero dimensional points through the 1 dimensional line as “movement”.
The Ether as 1 dimensional point and -1 dimensional line, has a dualistic approximate of the Apeiron as 0 dimensional point and 1 dimensional line that is a grade of, but not equivalent to the Ether as “negative” space. Space is the coproduct of “limit” and “non-limit” (boundary) as the Ether (non moving unity) and Apeiron (individuate movement):

(S ∐〖 (Ω,ψ)〗) = (⟨1∂|-1∂⟩)/(⟨0∂|1D⟩)

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:31 am (1∂ ≡ -1∂) → 0∂ → 1D ≜ ∫(0∂,0∂)

(-1∂ ⋈ 1D) ≜ ∫(0∂,0∂)

(S ∐〖 (Ω,ψ)〗) = (⟨1∂|-1∂⟩)/(⟨0∂|1D⟩)
Dear JohnDoe, please at least define the letters you are using. Without definition of the components, the expression has no meaning. We, your readers, have absolutely no clue what you are trying to impress us with, unless you tell us which letter stand precisely for what.

This you ought to have known without my prodding. Tsk, tsk.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:43 am
-1- wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:36 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:31 am (1∂ ≡ -1∂) → 0∂ → 1D ≜ ∫(0∂,0∂)

(-1∂ ⋈ 1D) ≜ ∫(0∂,0∂)

(S ∐〖 (Ω,ψ)〗) = (⟨1∂|-1∂⟩)/(⟨0∂|1D⟩)
Dear JohnDoe, please at least define the letters you are using. Without definition of the components, the expression has no meaning. We, your readers, have absolutely no clue what you are trying to impress us with, unless you tell us which letter stand precisely for what.

This you ought to have known without my prodding. Tsk, tsk.
Hence the "english" translation above. Why would I try to impress those who can't read? But for your sake, since you often times seem to have difficulty:

≡ = reflection/mirroring
-1∂ = negative one dimensional (imaginary) line
→ = manifests
1D = 1 dimensional line
≜ = equal in definition/change
∫ = relative to
0∂ = zero dimensional point
⋈ = interjoined
S = space
∐ = coproduct
Ω = dimensional limits/limit
ψ = possible dimensional limit/ no limit (⟨
1∂ = 1 dimensional point
⟨|⟩ = duality

by the way: "A" makes an "ahh" sound, "B" makes a "buhh" sound.....

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:43 am
Hence the "english" ***You mean English?*** translation above. Why would I try to impress those who can't read? But for your sake, since you often times seem to have difficulty:

≡ = reflection/mirroring
-1∂ = negative one dimensional (imaginary) line
→ = manifests
1D = 1 dimensional line
≜ = equal in definition/change
∫ = relative to
0∂ = zero dimensional point
⋈ = interjoined
S = space
∐ = coproduct
Ω = dimensional limits/limit
ψ = possible dimensional limit/ no limit (⟨
1∂ = 1 dimensional point
⟨|⟩ = duality

by the way: "A" makes an "ahh" sound, "B" makes a "buhh" sound.....
Thank you very much for your patient transliteration of the components of your expressions.

I still have difficulties with some or most of these concepts. One dimensional point... how is that different from a zero dimensional point? Is a one dimensional point in plain English a line?

coproduct... have no clue what that means

Equal in defintion / equal in change, or equal in definition and change in definition?

Negative line?

And I have no concept of duality as a stand-alone quality.

But I am sure that there are other readers in this forum who are much more educated and smarter than I, and they will glimpse your wisdom.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:08 am
-1- wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:43 am
Hence the "english" ***You mean English?*** translation above. Why would I try to impress those who can't read? But for your sake, since you often times seem to have difficulty:

≡ = reflection/mirroring
-1∂ = negative one dimensional (imaginary) line
→ = manifests
1D = 1 dimensional line
≜ = equal in definition/change
∫ = relative to
0∂ = zero dimensional point
⋈ = interjoined
S = space
∐ = coproduct
Ω = dimensional limits/limit
ψ = possible dimensional limit/ no limit (⟨
1∂ = 1 dimensional point
⟨|⟩ = duality

by the way: "A" makes an "ahh" sound, "B" makes a "buhh" sound.....
Thank you very much for your patient transliteration of the components of your expressions.
I can respect questions, questions are rational.

I still have difficulties with some or most of these concepts. One dimensional point... how is that different from a zero dimensional point? Is a one dimensional point in plain English a line?

A one dimensional point, I am arguing, is strictly a point directed into itself as "point" and in these respects maintains its structure through and "intradimensional" nature synonymous with non-movement.

coproduct... have no clue what that means
"Product manufactured along with a different product, in a process in which both are required in the production of another product."

Equal in defintion / equal in change, or equal in definition and change in definition?
Change is equal

Negative line?
A negative dimension is an absence of direction and is synonymous with "imaginary" or completely "visualized" and not a thing in itself. I am arguing that it is an extension between 1 dimensional points as the one dimensional points are composed of eachother any "seperation" would be "imaginary" or a negative dimension.

And I have no concept of duality as a stand-alone quality.
Plus/minus, White/black, etc. those are "duals" or symmetrical "opposites" that exist in relation or mirror eachother.
But I am sure that there are other readers in this forum who are much more educated and smarter than I, and they will glimpse your wisdom.
Who knows....just looking for feedback on the subject itself.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:08 am Who knows....just looking for feedback on the subject itself.
I obviously can't give you any feedback on the subject (especially, because I don't even know what the subject is, in the first place), but I have an honest question (even if an extremely naive one which would embarrass anyone a little less unembarrassable than me).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:43 am ≡ = reflection/mirroring
-1∂ = negative one dimensional (imaginary) line
→ = manifests
1D = 1 dimensional line
≜ = equal in definition/change
∫ = relative to
0∂ = zero dimensional point
⋈ = interjoined
S = space
∐ = coproduct
Ω = dimensional limits/limit
ψ = possible dimensional limit/ no limit (⟨
1∂ = 1 dimensional point
⟨|⟩ = duality
Where do you learn the above language? Is it simply Logic, or a more specialized field?

Are there any books a layman can tackle to begin to understand that? I find it fascinating...

Best,
M.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am
Mnemoriam wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:08 am Who knows....just looking for feedback on the subject itself.
I obviously can't give you any feedback on the subject (especially, because I don't even know what the subject is, in the first place), but I have an honest question (even if an extremely naive one which would embarrass anyone a little less unembarrassable than me).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:43 am ≡ = reflection/mirroring
-1∂ = negative one dimensional (imaginary) line
→ = manifests
1D = 1 dimensional line
≜ = equal in definition/change
∫ = relative to
0∂ = zero dimensional point
⋈ = interjoined
S = space
∐ = coproduct
Ω = dimensional limits/limit
ψ = possible dimensional limit/ no limit (⟨
1∂ = 1 dimensional point
⟨|⟩ = duality
Where do you learn the above language? Is it simply Logic, or a more specialized field?

Are there any books a layman can tackle to begin to understand that? I find it fascinating...

Best,
M.
Courses in Mathematics and Logic helps. In regards to math, I do not believe anything higher than the various forms of algebra would be required as certain logicians (muslims if I remember correctly and my memory is very poor so someone here can correct me) observed logic to extend "mathematically" all the way up to algrebra.

Symbolic logic, although considered by some to be outdated, is helpful.

The symbols are strictly meant to take all the information represented in words and "pack" them into information dense symbols. Some of my notes are strictly in symbolic logic. The problem occurs, as you can see (and this is a problem I am still dealing with), is that not all people understand the "symbols".

If memory serves correctly (and I expect someone to correct me otherwise on this point) there is 1 of 3 mathematical methods called "formalism". Formalism, as far as I understand, is strictly learning mathematics through the inherent symbolism rather than the standard grade school perspective of multiplication tables, etc.

Many of the symbols actually have english equivalents such as "∫" meaning "in respect to". So when I observe something, such as x existing in respect to y manifesting z I use that symbol. It is stuff like that that helps bridge math and language together, at minimum for private use, and helps one to better observe the logical foundations inherent within one's own argument or someone else's. Philosophy is logic at the end of the day, and mathematics is subset of it.

Logic, as the observation of order, in many respects becomes and art in itself and very therapeutic. It helps one not only to reflect on their own thoughts, but those of others and the environment around them and see the "structure" which composes them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... al_symbols
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... by_subject

In regards to the post, the argument is strictly one emphasizing that all reality is composed of space and this space is composed of dimensions that act as limits. This limits form boundaries that both provide unity and multiplicity and in these respects are a neutral dimension of space as both stable/unified and moving/multiplicity space. Secondly there are "possible limits" which are simply neither stable nor fluxing nor unified nor multiple and these possible limits are "no-limit".

I hope that makes more sense, as I went over the argument (it is part of my notes) and there are a few things I had to "tweak" in it.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:53 pm

I am very interested in mnemonics (hence my name), so I find the bridge between logic, language and memory particularly fascinating (a great book on the subject is "Logic and the art of memory", by Paolo Rossi). The role of symbols is, of course, central to the whole matter.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am The symbols are strictly meant to take all the information represented in words and "pack" them into information dense symbols. Some of my notes are strictly in symbolic logic. The problem occurs, as you can see (and this is a problem I am still dealing with), is that not all people understand the "symbols".
I guess the relation logic/mathematical symbols have with respect to words is quite similar to that of words with respect to concepts in general. We abstract a huge number of concretes coming from perception or other lower-level concepts into a higher-level concept represented by a word. This word/symbol therefore acts as a huge time-saver, facilitating thought and communication — but up to a point. You mention the problem that people can’t always understand “your” symbols, but can they always understand our words? This is probably a subject-matter for the philosophy of language, but I believe most agree that words have been misused and manipulated throughout history, with the gravest of consequences.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am If memory serves correctly (and I expect someone to correct me otherwise on this point) there is 1 of 3 mathematical methods called "formalism". Formalism, as far as I understand, is strictly learning mathematics through the inherent symbolism rather than the standard grade school perspective of multiplication tables, etc.
One of the problems with mnemonics, in my opinion, is the lack of formalism. If you need to communicate any image you create, or even if you want to review it later, or even simply to note it down on a piece of paper, you might get yourself into trouble. Since you don’t have formal rules for codifying information into appropriate images, you might forget what spark of metaphorical imagination led you to a given idea for an image, and then simply forget the image (or its meaning) altogether. I have thought for a long time about this difficult subject, and that has led me in a tortuous path through things like universal languages (Bacon, Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz, Blissymbolics) and conceptual graphs (Sowa) and the like. To attempt “formalize imagination” has been a crazy and, I must admit, over-my-head objective, but a fascinating one (albeit an almost fruitless one, I am afraid).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am Many of the symbols actually have english equivalents such as "∫" meaning "in respect to". So when I observe something, such as x existing in respect to y manifesting z I use that symbol. It is stuff like that that helps bridge math and language together, at minimum for private use, and helps one to better observe the logical foundations inherent within one's own argument or someone else's. Philosophy is logic at the end of the day, and mathematics is subset of it.
The basics of the ancient technique of artificial memory first demand that one to decides the level of detail to memorize. Memoria verborum means memorizing word for word and memoria rerum, or memory for things, means codifying the gist of it. My desire for formalism was meant for memoria verborum but, when my efforts turned out almost fruitless, I resigned myself to memoria rerum. But the truth is that it’s been hugely useful to me, and it got me out of "analysis through paralysis". I have been creating images as I read a given book. But I use layered reading, so in my first skimming "layer", I usually create only one image per chapter, or per any other section that makes sense depending on the material. Then, in a second pass, I concentrate in one chapter at a time and create more images, linking them hierarchically (any arbitrary tree can be seen as a binary tree, so any such image has at most three mnemonic links, which makes this procedure very useful, practical, and scalable). The reason I say all this here is that, after this is done, I have no way to easily translate these images into words in a notepad. I don’t mean its whole meaning, but symbols that could synthesize them. While your symbols bridge math and language, I'd like "mine" to bridge language and memory. I think logic provides the answer for both the cases, I just can't pinpoint yet exactly how. The breadth of disciplines involved in this problem is staggering!
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am Logic, as the observation of order, in many respects becomes and art in itself and very therapeutic. It helps one not only to reflect on their own thoughts, but those of others and the environment around them and see the "structure" which composes them.
If what you say is true, it corroborates beautifully what I said above. Mnemonics is also an art with great therapeutic effects; if it could be properly combined with logic, the result would be (I believe) extremely powerful not only for memorization, but for reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am In regards to the post, the argument is strictly one emphasizing that all reality is composed of space and this space is composed of dimensions that act as limits. This limits form boundaries that both provide unity and multiplicity and in these respects are a neutral dimension of space as both stable/unified and moving/multiplicity space. Secondly there are "possible limits" which are simply neither stable nor fluxing nor unified nor multiple and these possible limits are "no-limit".

I hope that makes more sense, as I went over the argument (it is part of my notes) and there are a few things I had to "tweak" in it.
I see you have been developing this idea since a previous thread. I tried to compare both to see if I understood enough to at least pose a rational question to you, but I simply can't. I might be wrong, but I think your problem with other people is not only about symbols: your thought-process is simply too advanced!

I hope to get there eventually.

Best,
M.

(sorry for the long and almost-completely-out-of-scope post)

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm
Mnemoriam wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:53 pm Thanks for your detailed response.

I am very interested in mnemonics (hence my name), so I find the bridge between logic, language and memory particularly fascinating (a great book on the subject is "Logic and the art of memory", by Paolo Rossi). The role of symbols is, of course, central to the whole matter.
Using the post subject of "limit" and "no-limit" we can observe that symbols act as medial points between logic, language and memory. In these respects what we understand of logic/language/and memory as strictly "structures" whose apex is symbolism as a center point.

For example:

Logic as the observation of structure is dependent upon a mathematical symbolism, which these symbols acting as boundaries which both maintain certain degrees of information and in seperate respects are able to mediate that information between other symbols. As medial points, logistic symbols are absent of limit as they are strictly centers that provide structure.

The same occurs for language as the format through letters/words/paragraphs/etc provides the same structure of "limit" which both maintains information and seperates it, but also act as possible limits by taking the place of medial center points and mediating the information.

In these respects looking at logic/language we can observe through their inherent symbolism:

a) They contain dimensional limits (as boundaries) which maintain the inherent information properties (as an act of memory) through an act of unity embodied as the symbol itself. It simultaneously separates the symbol from other symbols as an act of "individuation" resulting in multiple symbols gaining definition if and only if they relate. In these respects all symbols maintain a duality as "unified information" and "multiple information" with the symbol itself being the third neutral element as "limit".

b) These symbols acting as medial center points to other symbols, are dually absent in structure in separate respect as they mediate other symbols by acting as "centers". In these respects they maintain "no-limit" as "possible limit" through mediating separate symbols. Symbols maintain an absence of structure in a seperate respect, as "centers" (or No-limit), and manifest themselves as neutral in that they are neither unified/stable or multiple/relating.

C) Symbols maintain a dual form of neutral as "both unified/multiple" in nature and "neither unified/multiple" in nature. Looking at the third element of "memory" you were talking about, we can observe memory follows this same format of "Dimensional Limit" and "Possible Dimensional Limit" in the same manner as logic and language.

We remember through symbols, with these symbols being extensions of the imagination as a part of the "imaging process". The imaging process, gives form and function to abstract concepts through the "crystalization" of form as "symbolism". In simple terms, we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving "image" to them. These "images" follow the same nature of "limit/no-limit" as described above. These symbols, in turn form memory as "structuring through frequency."

We remember through repetition, and repetition is strictly "structuring". This is considering that repetition is a form of "symmetry" in itself similiar in form and function to the image process. The reason for this is that all images, as form, exist through symmetry. We remember and observe symmetrical forms and the imaging process gives this "symmetry" where we observe the structure of the image itself as "symmetrical".

This symmetry is further compounded when not only the symbol is formed but when it is repeated as a second degree of symmetry. In the first respect we form the symbol through symmetry, and in this second degree we repeat the symbol itself as further form of symmetry. This memory, as a second degree of the symbolic process, extends the symbol through time and space by the act of memory/repitition itself. In these respects a third degree of symmetry can be observe through "actualization".

Where the symbol was first formed through symmetry, then folded upon itself through repetition/memory as a second degree of symmetry, the third degree of symmetry occurs in the actualization where symbol itself manifests itself in physical concrete ways, such as communication, etc. This third degree of symmetry, allows the symbol to branch off into further concepts and the process is repeated to some degree.

Symbols, in these respects, exist much in the same manner as an organic entity. It is formed from symmetry (egg/sperm in real life), it is remembered (gestates in the womb), and then it is actualized and give use (birthed).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am The symbols are strictly meant to take all the information represented in words and "pack" them into information dense symbols. Some of my notes are strictly in symbolic logic. The problem occurs, as you can see (and this is a problem I am still dealing with), is that not all people understand the "symbols".
I guess the relation logic/mathematical symbols have with respect to words is quite similar to that of words with respect to concepts in general. We abstract a huge number of concretes coming from perception or other lower-level concepts into a higher-level concept represented by a word. This word/symbol therefore acts as a huge time-saver, facilitating thought and communication — but up to a point. You mention the problem that people can’t always understand “your” symbols, but can they always understand our words?
Excellent point, and the answer I would give is most often times "no". The thing of it is, using the examples I posted above, language goes through a continual act of "synthesis" much in the same manner any concrete entity does (rock, animal). In these respects there are always degrees of change and what we consider "axiomatic" is really just a means of approximation.

Language/Logic, and even memory for that matter, is approximation through medial points that dually act as boundaries. These boundaries (symbols) have further center points that have boundaries...and this goes on ad-infinitum both regressively and progressively. In these respects what we understand of language/logic/memory is strictly approximation.

The problem occurs in the respect that if one says everything is "approximate" that is either a true or false statement; it is either defined or undefined. So what we understand of logic/language/memory goes back to an unavoidable triadic structure of positive/negative/neutral as "defined/undefined/both-neither. Each element of this triadic structure forms the other element while simultaneously being an element in itself.

So the nature of language/logic/memory breaks down to an understanding of its "unified and multiple nature as limit" and "neither as no limit".

This is probably a subject-matter for the philosophy of language, but I believe most agree that words have been misused and manipulated throughout history, with the gravest of consequences.

I am not arguing against that point, because their is alot of truth in it, but considering all ways of live are formed through language and these ways of life continually change through history (and will in the further), would it be a stretch to say that language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis? If that is the case, than there is a rational foundation for this change.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am If memory serves correctly (and I expect someone to correct me otherwise on this point) there is 1 of 3 mathematical methods called "formalism". Formalism, as far as I understand, is strictly learning mathematics through the inherent symbolism rather than the standard grade school perspective of multiplication tables, etc.
One of the problems with mnemonics, in my opinion, is the lack of formalism. If you need to communicate any image you create, or even if you want to review it later, or even simply to note it down on a piece of paper, you might get yourself into trouble. Since you don’t have formal rules for codifying information into appropriate images, you might forget what spark of metaphorical imagination led you to a given idea for an image, and then simply forget the image (or its meaning) altogether. I have thought for a long time about this difficult subject, and that has led me in a tortuous path through things like universal languages (Bacon, Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz, Blissymbolics) and conceptual graphs (Sowa) and the like. To attempt “formalize imagination” has been a crazy and, I must admit, over-my-head objective, but a fascinating one (albeit an almost fruitless one, I am afraid).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am Many of the symbols actually have english equivalents such as "∫" meaning "in respect to". So when I observe something, such as x existing in respect to y manifesting z I use that symbol. It is stuff like that that helps bridge math and language together, at minimum for private use, and helps one to better observe the logical foundations inherent within one's own argument or someone else's. Philosophy is logic at the end of the day, and mathematics is subset of it.
The basics of the ancient technique of artificial memory first demand that one to decides the level of detail to memorize. Memoria verborum means memorizing word for word and memoria rerum, or memory for things, means codifying the gist of it.
Using what I said above "memoria verborum" would equivocate to the memorization of "definition/no-definition" and Memoria rerum" would equivocate to the memorization of "approximation". In these respects, these dual forms of memory provide the foundation of triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison.

My desire for formalism was meant for memoria verborum but, when my efforts turned out almost fruitless,
That method only words for autistic people, as that level of detail does not allow any form of irrational structures (emotion) to give it form. You need a duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion) in the process of memorization. We can seed this duality within the golden mean as "extreme/emotion" and "median/reason/mind" where you need both in order to "propogate" any continuity.
I resigned myself to memoria rerum. But the truth is that it’s been hugely useful to me, and it got me out of "analysis through paralysis". I have been creating images as I read a given book. But I use layered reading, so in my first skimming "layer", I usually create only one image per chapter, or per any other section that makes sense depending on the material. Then, in a second pass, I concentrate in one chapter at a time and create more images, linking them hierarchically (any arbitrary tree can be seen as a binary tree, so any such image has at most three mnemonic links, which makes this procedure very useful, practical, and scalable). The reason I say all this here is that, after this is done, I have no way to easily translate these images into words in a notepad. I don’t mean its whole meaning, but symbols that could synthesize them. While your symbols bridge math and language, I'd like "mine" to bridge language and memory. I think logic provides the answer for both the cases, I just can't pinpoint yet exactly how. The breadth of disciplines involved in this problem is staggering!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am Logic, as the observation of order, in many respects becomes and art in itself and very therapeutic. It helps one not only to reflect on their own thoughts, but those of others and the environment around them and see the "structure" which composes them.
If what you say is true, it corroborates beautifully what I said above. Mnemonics is also an art with great therapeutic effects; if it could be properly combined with logic, the result would be (I believe) extremely powerful not only for memorization, but for reasoning.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:50 am In regards to the post, the argument is strictly one emphasizing that all reality is composed of space and this space is composed of dimensions that act as limits. This limits form boundaries that both provide unity and multiplicity and in these respects are a neutral dimension of space as both stable/unified and moving/multiplicity space. Secondly there are "possible limits" which are simply neither stable nor fluxing nor unified nor multiple and these possible limits are "no-limit".

I hope that makes more sense, as I went over the argument (it is part of my notes) and there are a few things I had to "tweak" in it.
I see you have been developing this idea since a previous thread. I tried to compare both to see if I understood enough to at least pose a rational question to you, but I simply can't. I might be wrong, but I think your problem with other people is not only about symbols: your thought-process is simply too advanced!

I hope to get there eventually.
Haha, me too.

Best,
M.

(sorry for the long and almost-completely-out-of-scope post)

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:16 pm
While still well above my head, I appreciated your response in many respects.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm Logic as the observation of structure is dependent upon a mathematical symbolism, which these symbols acting as boundaries which both maintain certain degrees of information and in seperate respects are able to mediate that information between other symbols. As medial points, logistic symbols are absent of limit as they are strictly centers that provide structure.

The same occurs for language as the format through letters/words/paragraphs/etc provides the same structure of "limit" which both maintains information and seperates it, but also act as possible limits by taking the place of medial center points and mediating the information.
What you say reminds me of two things, which, however, I am not really sure that they have anything to do with what you mean. But that’s how I might begin to understand you, if you’d have the trouble to keep correcting me.

First, when you talked about “structures” and “boundaries”, I immediately thought about a figure in page 18 of a introductory book on semiotics I have, called “Semiotics, The Basics”, by Daniel Chandler. There, two planes corresponding to the signifier and the signified of the Saussurean model of signs are shown. The author says that Saussure’s “conception of meaning was purely structural and relational rather than referential: primacy was given to relationships rather than to things”. He goes on to say that “no sign makes sense on its own but only in relation no other signs”. So signs (which is more encompassing than “symbols” but I think in this discussion both might apply) are interpreted as arbitrarily defined “regions” in the continuum of both planes. This regions therefore have limits which provide structure, whereas the medial points would represent the precise meaning of the symbol (in the signifier plane) and th prototypical concept (or object) it symbolises (in the signified plane). And that leads me to the second think you reminded me of.

Second, it seems to be that to maintain that the medial points are any different from any other point in a given symbol/region would be to maintain that these other points are less representative of the given symbol. If that’s so, this reminds me of my previous experience with Fuzzy Logic. I have never deepened myself in the math of it, but I have spent quite some time experimenting with classification based on Fuzzy Logic. These other points inside the region would, therefore, have fuzzy memberships smaller than 1, with only the medial points having it equal to 1. This might also account for the vagueness inherent in language and explain some of the difficulty you, I, and everybody else face with communication.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm In these respects looking at logic/language we can observe through their inherent symbolism:

a) They contain dimensional limits (as boundaries) which maintain the inherent information properties (as an act of memory) through an act of unity embodied as the symbol itself. It simultaneously separates the symbol from other symbols as an act of "individuation" resulting in multiple symbols gaining definition if and only if they relate. In these respects all symbols maintain a duality as "unified information" and "multiple information" with the symbol itself being the third neutral element as "limit".
You agree with Saussure in the bolded session, and I think I understand, therefore, why you assign unity and multiplicity to the symbols, although I must admit that your use of double quotes sometimes hampers my understanding. Most of the really important terms you use are inside double quotes. Maybe you yourself are still not 100% sure what they mean? If you established exactly what you mean, maybe you could even use an invented word such as, say, flinnons and things would get clearer. I understood the symbol as a limit (although you write “limit”), but what do you mean by “third neutral element”? Why neutral? What are the first and second elements? Don’t you mean property or attribute, being the first property of the symbol the unity, the second the multiplicity, and the third the fact that it is itself a “no-limit” (your 1 dimensional point, or maybe your zero-dimensional point?) You see, when I write “no-limit”, i.e., using quotes, I myself am not sure what this means. It seems to me you are saying that medial points are limitless because being in the centre, they must have other similar points around it, and it is those points that might provide the limits of the symbol. If that’s so, I think my allusion to Fuzzy logic might make sense. What do you think?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm b) These symbols acting as medial center points to other symbols, are dually absent in structure in separate respect as they mediate other symbols by acting as "centers". In these respects they maintain "no-limit" as "possible limit" through mediating separate symbols. Symbols maintain an absence of structure in a seperate respect, as "centers" (or No-limit), and manifest themselves as neutral in that they are neither unified/stable or multiple/relating.
Here, you got me confused. You had said before that symbols provide structure, but now you say that they maintain “an absence of structure” and, moreover, are “dually absent in structure”. Are you now repeating the previous argument that the symbols themselves, as medial points, are limitless and, therefore, structureless themselves?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm C) Symbols maintain a dual form of neutral as "both unified/multiple" in nature and "neither unified/multiple" in nature. Looking at the third element of "memory" you were talking about, we can observe memory follows this same format of "Dimensional Limit" and "Possible Dimensional Limit" in the same manner as logic and language.
Both unified/multiple already sounds like a contradiction, although I believe I understand what you mean; but when you say "both unified/multiple and neither unified/multiple”, now it’s like you have a “double contradiction”! It seems that you call this “double contradiction” the “dual form of neutral”, but that’s hard to grasp.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm We remember through symbols, with these symbols being extensions of the imagination as a part of the "imaging process". The imaging process, gives form and function to abstract concepts through the "crystalization" of form as "symbolism". In simple terms, we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving "image" to them. These "images" follow the same nature of "limit/no-limit" as described above. These symbols, in turn form memory as "structuring through frequency."

We remember through repetition, and repetition is strictly "structuring". This is considering that repetition is a form of "symmetry" in itself similiar in form and function to the image process. The reason for this is that all images, as form, exist through symmetry. We remember and observe symmetrical forms and the imaging process gives this "symmetry" where we observe the structure of the image itself as "symmetrical".

This symmetry is further compounded when not only the symbol is formed but when it is repeated as a second degree of symmetry. In the first respect we form the symbol through symmetry, and in this second degree we repeat the symbol itself as further form of symmetry. This memory, as a second degree of the symbolic process, extends the symbol through time and space by the act of memory/repitition itself. In these respects a third degree of symmetry can be observe through "actualization".

Where the symbol was first formed through symmetry, then folded upon itself through repetition/memory as a second degree of symmetry, the third degree of symmetry occurs in the actualization where symbol itself manifests itself in physical concrete ways, such as communication, etc. This third degree of symmetry, allows the symbol to branch off into further concepts and the process is repeated to some degree.

Symbols, in these respects, exist much in the same manner as an organic entity. It is formed from symmetry (egg/sperm in real life), it is remembered (gestates in the womb), and then it is actualized and give use (birthed).[/color]
I have difficulty to understand your point here, but I want to very much. A mnemonist would love to hear that "we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving 'image' to them", but this is largely disputed. As Paivio says in his book Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach, "The language-supremacy view of mind is ancient and tenacious". I tend to agree more with his dual-coding theory where both verbal language and imagery join forces to allow us to think like we do. But anyway, when you talk about "three degrees of symmetry" are you talking about the process of symbolism? As far as I understood what you said, we devise a symbol by creating an image based on a concept or an object from reality (the first degree of symmetry); then when we remember the symbol, we bring back the memory of what it relates to as well, and in doing so, it is as if we were repeating the image-formation of that concept, thus reinforcing the symbol/memory (second degree of symmetry); and, finally, when we use the symbol and, thus, make it physical (either by sound or writing; or, maybe, when we touch the object it symbolizes? When it refers to a physical thing, of course) we are "actualizing" the symbol (the third degree of symmetry). Is that close?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm I am not arguing against that point, because their is alot of truth in it, but considering all ways of live are formed through language and these ways of life continually change through history (and will in the further), would it be a stretch to say that language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis? If that is the case, than there is a rational foundation for this change.
Maybe what you mean here is much wider in sense than what I understood, but I am pretty sure any linguist will agree with me (and you?) that language is almost as a living thing, adapting and changing in relation to ways of life, needs, etc. I find it particularly fascinating the way one single generation can create a new language, as in the case of a pidgin becoming a creole language. I find this expression of yours quite nice and precise when you say that "language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm Using what I said above "memoria verborum" would equivocate to the memorization of "definition/no-definition" and Memoria rerum" would equivocate to the memorization of "approximation". In these respects, these dual forms of memory provide the foundation of triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison.

[...]

That method only words for autistic people, as that level of detail does not allow any form of irrational structures (emotion) to give it form. You need a duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion) in the process of memorization. We can seed this duality within the golden mean as "extreme/emotion" and "median/reason/mind" where you need both in order to "propogate" any continuity.
I like very much the way you combined the two types of memorization with the duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion). I think it makes a lot of sense, and it explains part of my failure in systematizing mnemonics. But what exactly you mean by a "triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison"? What would be the third element apart from the two types of memory? This is very interesting.

I am sorry for all the questions and for possibly mentioning too much stuff that is not germane to the topic at hand. I really hope that you will bear with me enough so that I can eventually get to your original topic that "all reality is composed of space and this space is composed of dimensions that act as limits".

For now, I am still "lost in space"

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:05 am
Mnemoriam wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:16 pm While still well above my head, I appreciated your response in many respects.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm Logic as the observation of structure is dependent upon a mathematical symbolism, which these symbols acting as boundaries which both maintain certain degrees of information and in seperate respects are able to mediate that information between other symbols. As medial points, logistic symbols are absent of limit as they are strictly centers that provide structure.

The same occurs for language as the format through letters/words/paragraphs/etc provides the same structure of "limit" which both maintains information and seperates it, but also act as possible limits by taking the place of medial center points and mediating the information.
What you say reminds me of two things, which, however, I am not really sure that they have anything to do with what you mean. But that’s how I might begin to understand you, if you’d have the trouble to keep correcting me.

First, when you talked about “structures” and “boundaries”, I immediately thought about a figure in page 18 of a introductory book on semiotics I have, called “Semiotics, The Basics”, by Daniel Chandler. There, two planes corresponding to the signifier and the signified of the Saussurean model of signs are shown. The author says that Saussure’s “conception of meaning was purely structural and relational rather than referential: primacy was given to relationships rather than to things”. He goes on to say that “no sign makes sense on its own but only in relation no other signs”. So signs (which is more encompassing than “symbols” but I think in this discussion both might apply) are interpreted as arbitrarily defined “regions” in the continuum of both planes. This regions therefore have limits which provide structure, whereas the medial points would represent the precise meaning of the symbol (in the signifier plane) and th prototypical concept (or object) it symbolises (in the signified plane). And that leads me to the second think you reminded me of.

Second, it seems to be that to maintain that the medial points are any different from any other point in a given symbol/region would be to maintain that these other points are less representative of the given symbol. If that’s so, this reminds me of my previous experience with Fuzzy Logic. I have never deepened myself in the math of it, but I have spent quite some time experimenting with classification based on Fuzzy Logic. These other points inside the region would, therefore, have fuzzy memberships smaller than 1, with only the medial points having it equal to 1. This might also account for the vagueness inherent in language and explain some of the difficulty you, I, and everybody else face with communication.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm In these respects looking at logic/language we can observe through their inherent symbolism:

a) They contain dimensional limits (as boundaries) which maintain the inherent information properties (as an act of memory) through an act of unity embodied as the symbol itself. It simultaneously separates the symbol from other symbols as an act of "individuation" resulting in multiple symbols gaining definition if and only if they relate. In these respects all symbols maintain a duality as "unified information" and "multiple information" with the symbol itself being the third neutral element as "limit".
You agree with Saussure in the bolded session, and I think I understand, therefore, why you assign unity and multiplicity to the symbols, although I must admit that your use of double quotes sometimes hampers my understanding. Most of the really important terms you use are inside double quotes. Maybe you yourself are still not 100% sure what they mean?
Its a mix. We have alot of words within the english language which reflect similiar means. In this case dimensions and boundaries can be viewed as synonymous.

If you established exactly what you mean, maybe you could even use an invented word such as, say, flinnons and things would get clearer.
Never thought of that....I'll think about it.
I understood the symbol as a limit (although you write “limit”), but what do you mean by “third neutral element”?
The symbol in itself is neutral and mediates between a unified and multiple nature of information by providing foundations for both as duals that exist in seperate respects.

Why neutral? What are the first and second elements?
Unity and multiplicity.

Don’t you mean property or attribute, being the first property of the symbol the unity, the second the multiplicity, and the third the fact that it is itself a “no-limit” (your 1 dimensional point, or maybe your zero-dimensional point?)
Yes, Yes, and Yes/No. The symbol as a neutral element maintains that duality of multiplicity and unity as "both, and" which forms the basis of dimensional limits as "boundaries" which give structure. In a second respect the symbol is neither multiple or unified and in these respects exists through Possible Limits (or no-limit) that exists dually to dimensional limit. Neutrality contains a dual element of "Both" and "neither" in seperate respects.

You see, when I write “no-limit”, i.e., using quotes, I myself am not sure what this means. It seems to me you are saying that medial points are limitless because being in the centre, they must have other similar points around it, and it is those points that might provide the limits of the symbol. If that’s so, I think my allusion to Fuzzy logic might make sense. What do you think?

Fuzzy logic deals fundamentally with grades or "fractals" that continually relate to form further fractals. This fractal nature of the symbol implies it exists through many grades or pieces that relate in order to form the symbol itself. The problem occurs in the respect that a fractal is fundamentally a deficiency, and as a deficiency it is deficient in structure. In these respects symbols may be viewed as particulate that must relate to other particulate in order to exist. The problem occurs that the process of continual relation, as change, results in a continual "particulation" of the meaning of the symbol itself as the symbol individuates (through these relations) and either multiplies, divides, or usually both. Think of cell growing another cell, through its relations to another cell....does the cell "divide" itself... or does it "multipy itself...or both? The same exists in regards to the symbol.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm b) These symbols acting as medial center points to other symbols, are dually absent in structure in separate respect as they mediate other symbols by acting as "centers". In these respects they maintain "no-limit" as "possible limit" through mediating separate symbols. Symbols maintain an absence of structure in a seperate respect, as "centers" (or No-limit), and manifest themselves as neutral in that they are neither unified/stable or multiple/relating.
Here, you got me confused. You had said before that symbols provide structure, but now you say that they maintain “an absence of structure” and, moreover, are “dually absent in structure”. Are you now repeating the previous argument that the symbols themselves, as medial points, are limitless and, therefore, structureless themselves?
Going back to the argument about Neutrality, the symbol maintains a dual nature of limit and no limit. These limits enable the structure of the symbol but unifying it is one respects and seperating it in another (as a form of multiplicity). This dual nature of "No-limit" exists in regards to the symbol acting as a medial point (as all structures have a center of balance) which allow for possible further dimensions to be synthesized through it. This possibilistic nature implies a limitless nature to the symbol, at the same time in a different respect through the "center" as fundamentally ad-infinitum.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm C) Symbols maintain a dual form of neutral as "both unified/multiple" in nature and "neither unified/multiple" in nature. Looking at the third element of "memory" you were talking about, we can observe memory follows this same format of "Dimensional Limit" and "Possible Dimensional Limit" in the same manner as logic and language.
This may help. If you look at how you presented "unified" and "multiple" as "unified/multiple". This duality synthesized "/" as a neutral boundary line which provides limit. This "/" in a seperate respect centers these "duals" and provides further limits, for example: stable/moving, as approximates of it.

although I believe I understand what you mean; but when you say "both unified/multiple and neither unified/multiple”, now it’s like you have a “double contradiction”! It seems that you call this “double contradiction” the “dual form of neutral”, but that’s hard to grasp.
Neutrality can be observed as the "stabilizer" to the contradiction or paradox by allowing a duality to occur by the manifestation of dimensions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm We remember through symbols, with these symbols being extensions of the imagination as a part of the "imaging process". The imaging process, gives form and function to abstract concepts through the "crystalization" of form as "symbolism". In simple terms, we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving "image" to them. These "images" follow the same nature of "limit/no-limit" as described above. These symbols, in turn form memory as "structuring through frequency."

We remember through repetition, and repetition is strictly "structuring". This is considering that repetition is a form of "symmetry" in itself similiar in form and function to the image process. The reason for this is that all images, as form, exist through symmetry. We remember and observe symmetrical forms and the imaging process gives this "symmetry" where we observe the structure of the image itself as "symmetrical".

This symmetry is further compounded when not only the symbol is formed but when it is repeated as a second degree of symmetry. In the first respect we form the symbol through symmetry, and in this second degree we repeat the symbol itself as further form of symmetry. This memory, as a second degree of the symbolic process, extends the symbol through time and space by the act of memory/repitition itself. In these respects a third degree of symmetry can be observe through "actualization".

Where the symbol was first formed through symmetry, then folded upon itself through repetition/memory as a second degree of symmetry, the third degree of symmetry occurs in the actualization where symbol itself manifests itself in physical concrete ways, such as communication, etc. This third degree of symmetry, allows the symbol to branch off into further concepts and the process is repeated to some degree.

Symbols, in these respects, exist much in the same manner as an organic entity. It is formed from symmetry (egg/sperm in real life), it is remembered (gestates in the womb), and then it is actualized and give use (birthed).[/color]
I have difficulty to understand your point here, but I want to very much.
Symbols for the symmetry which crystalizes the concept. Memory provides further symmetry across time and space for the symbol to exist. This duality between the crystalization, as stability and unity, and memory, as multiplicity and movement, results in the synthesis of the symbol itself as fully existing as an entity in and of itself....an "axiom" in simpler terms. This "axiom" in turn manifests a physical and abstract nature by being a median point for both.

A mnemonist would love to hear that "we understand abstractions (and realities to a degree) by giving 'image' to them", but this is largely disputed. As Paivio says in his book Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach, "The language-supremacy view of mind is ancient and tenacious". I tend to agree more with his dual-coding theory where both verbal language and imagery join forces to allow us to think like we do. But anyway, when you talk about "three degrees of symmetry" are you talking about the process of symbolism? As far as I understood what you said, we devise a symbol by creating an image based on a concept or an object from reality (the first degree of symmetry); then when we remember the symbol, we bring back the memory of what it relates to as well, and in doing so, it is as if we were repeating the image-formation of that concept, thus reinforcing the symbol/memory (second degree of symmetry); and, finally, when we use the symbol and, thus, make it physical (either by sound or writing; or, maybe, when we touch the object it symbolizes? When it refers to a physical thing, of course) we are "actualizing" the symbol (the third degree of symmetry). Is that close?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm I am not arguing against that point, because their is alot of truth in it, but considering all ways of live are formed through language and these ways of life continually change through history (and will in the further), would it be a stretch to say that language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis? If that is the case, than there is a rational foundation for this change.
Maybe what you mean here is much wider in sense than what I understood, but I am pretty sure any linguist will agree with me (and you?) that language is almost as a living thing, adapting and changing in relation to ways of life, needs, etc.
Yes, it is in a process of continual synthesis where it manifests both "unity/multiplicity", "stability/movement", etc. while at the same time have "no limit" through possible limits as further synthesis. Synthesis is a completely neutral element that provides balance through the manfiestation of "dimensions". If we look at the nature of dimension, it is basically "direction as space" with the direction providing "unity..etc.".

I find it particularly fascinating the way one single generation can create a new language, as in the case of a pidgin becoming a creole language. I find this expression of yours quite nice and precise when you say that "language folds through itself through a continual product of synthesis".
That is the only way I have figured to word it so far. This product of synthesis, I will again point out, is strictly neutral on its own terms.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:11 pm Using what I said above "memoria verborum" would equivocate to the memorization of "definition/no-definition" and Memoria rerum" would equivocate to the memorization of "approximation". In these respects, these dual forms of memory provide the foundation of triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison.

[...]

That method only words for autistic people, as that level of detail does not allow any form of irrational structures (emotion) to give it form. You need a duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion) in the process of memorization. We can seed this duality within the golden mean as "extreme/emotion" and "median/reason/mind" where you need both in order to "propogate" any continuity.
I like very much the way you combined the two types of memorization with the duality of reason (mind) and irrationality (emotion). I think it makes a lot of sense, and it explains part of my failure in systematizing mnemonics. But what exactly you mean by a "triadic structure which stablizes itself when used in unison"?
Symbols, by their very nature provide us which three things: Definition, no definition, and approximation.

What would be the third element apart from the two types of memory? This is very interesting.
That is an interesting question. I would argue, the symbol itself as the "body". If we look at memory as "rational/mental" and "irrational/emotional" the third product would be "body"....just as the human person has a trifold constitution of body/mind/spirit. The symbol in this case would be the "body" as a form of memory in itself as pure symmetry. This is considering, if we look at the nature of memory as form of symmetry through repition, what we understand of all realities or phenomena is that they exist through symmetry. Symmetry, at its root is "limit" and "no-limit"(center) and in these respects is purely "space folding upon itself as space." Space being the root of the symbol, embodies itself as "dimension as direction"...which would give some clarity as to why we intuitively relate symbols with signs.

I am sorry for all the questions and for possibly mentioning too much stuff that is not germane to the topic at hand. I really hope that you will bear with me enough so that I can eventually get to your original topic that "all reality is composed of space and this space is composed of dimensions that act as limits".

Actually the examples work just fine as symbols are dimensions...pure and simple.

For now, I am still "lost in space"

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:35 pm

Unfortunately, I doubt I’ll be able to grasp you entirely (or even mostly) based on my current level of metaphysical knowledge.

Following the suggestion of the forum user Londoner, I’ve been reading the Blackwell Companion of Philosophy and, today, I read about Descartes. Just this simple summary showed me that I am not used to thinking metaphysically, at all. While I find this kind of reasoning very interesting, it is well above my head, for the time being.

I’ve really enjoyed this summary on Descartes, and it is motivating me to read more about him and about metaphysics per se (although I know for a fact that I will never be anything close to a Cartesian). I realize there is some kind of enormous gap in my knowledge that is hampering my understanding of many words and expressions you use, such as dimensions, symmetry, “direction as space”, synthesis, etc., so I really need something to read on these subjects. Do you suggest any book that could give me some useful “metaphysical vocabulary”?

I’ve really enjoyed your parallels between your topic and memory/signs. They also motivated me to get back to reading about these subjects and I think the perfect candidate for a come-back is lying untouched in my shelf: “The meaning of meaning”, by Ogden and Richards. It’s an old book, but I suspect it’s going to be very enlightening.

I’ll keep this thread in mind while I study the overall subject, and I’ll follow your progress. Maybe, eventually, I might catch up.

All my best,
M.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:38 am
Mnemoriam wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:35 pm Thanks for all your detailed answers.

Unfortunately, I doubt I’ll be able to grasp you entirely (or even mostly) based on my current level of metaphysical knowledge.

Following the suggestion of the forum user Londoner, I’ve been reading the Blackwell Companion of Philosophy and, today, I read about Descartes. Just this simple summary showed me that I am not used to thinking metaphysically, at all. While I find this kind of reasoning very interesting, it is well above my head, for the time being.
I would recommend Plato or Pythagoras, considering Plato is an extension of Pythagoras and Pythagoras was literally one of the first philosophers. He even coined the term "philosophy"...if that says anything to you. The problem with Descarte is that he breaks everything down to dualisms and because of this his argument have an inherently polarity through division within them. This polarity causes problems with definition as you are always stuck with the simple universal philosophical question at the end: What happens when an immovable object meets and unstoppable force? Most philosophers cannot answer this question, or any dualistic question for that matter, because of the "tension" between the two axioms results in a "flux/movement" of definition. The answer to this question, one in which I believe pythagoreans could come to some agreement on is "neutrality" as a third element....or the "synthesis" you claim to have difficulty in understanding. Come to think of it, do a little research on Heigl/Fichte, it will help with your understandiing of synthesis and give you a heavy dose of metaphysics you can contemplate on.

I’ve really enjoyed this summary on Descartes, and it is motivating me to read more about him and about metaphysics per se (although I know for a fact that I will never be anything close to a Cartesian). I realize there is some kind of enormous gap in my knowledge that is hampering my understanding of many words and expressions you use, such as dimensions, symmetry, “direction as space”, synthesis, etc., so I really need something to read on these subjects. Do you suggest any book that could give me some useful “metaphysical vocabulary”?

Just your standard dictionary on the internet will do.

I’ve really enjoyed your parallels between your topic and memory/signs. They also motivated me to get back to reading about these subjects and I think the perfect candidate for a come-back is lying untouched in my shelf: “The meaning of meaning”, by Ogden and Richards. It’s an old book, but I suspect it’s going to be very enlightening.
Don't judge a book by its age. Many times the same ideas are recycled later.

I’ll keep this thread in mind while I study the overall subject, and I’ll follow your progress. Maybe, eventually, I might catch up.
I appreciate the questions, so don't hold back on my account. Answering questions helps me see any actual and potential weaknesses in my argument/vocabulary/etc....so please at least for my sake don't hesitate to ask any questions...no matter how "simple" they make seem.

All my best,
M.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:08 pm
Thanks for the suggestions. I had never considered paying much attention to Pythagoras (at least, not more than any of the other pre-socratics), but I’ll try to find something to read on him now that you mentioned.

With respect to Descartes, I guess I’ll have to form my own opinions; he is so important for subsequent Philosophy that I don’t think anyone can escape studying him. Besides, he seems to be such a nice and enthusiastic guy that I can’t help but want to read him:

(first paragraph of his “Meditations”)
The motive which induces me to present to you this Treatise is so excellent, and, when you become acquainted with its design, I am convinced that you will also have so excellent a motive for taking it under your protection, that I feel that I cannot do better, in order to render it in some sort acceptable to you, than in a few words to state what I have set myself to do."
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:38 am I appreciate the questions, so don't hold back on my account. Answering questions helps me see any actual and potential weaknesses in my argument/vocabulary/etc....so please at least for my sake don't hesitate to ask any questions...no matter how "simple" they make seem.
I thank you very much for that.

If that’s the case, maybe we could do it piecemeal? Sentence by sentence, perhaps, and keep at it until (i) I totally understand your words, either by my learning or by your rewording of your arguments, or, most probably, both; or (ii) I get a brain tumor for too much effort and quit; or (iii) you decide (quite correctly) that I have no metaphysical wiring in my brain, and quit?

If you choose to accept the mission, I would thus urge you to do something for me that I think will profit you too:

1 - You are allowed to use only terms that have already been established by you through the answers to my questions or if needed be, you must provide definitions;

2 - You can’t use double quotes in any explanation unless when simply used for emphasis.

If you agree….:

“What we understand of unity is fundamentally a "Holism" where there is no absence but rather what exists, exists as 1 in both quantity and quality as space."

Unity:

I found this quote from Einstein: “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” Would that be a good representation of what you mean by unit? I think you don't even use the word matter in your post, but I think that the concept of space without matter to me (and, it seems, to Einstein too), makes little sense.

Holism:

In Wikipedia, holism is defined as the “idea that systems and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not just as a collection of parts”. So, whatever exists, either quantities or qualities of whatever exists, is some sort of unified space?

Absence:

When you say absence, you mean sheer nothingness, an empty space, space without any intervening matter or ether or black matter or anything?

Space:

Cutting down your sentence, you say that “what exists, exists as space”, so what you mean is that space can be understood as the whole of reality, all the matter, energy, conscience (?), or whatever that exists; and that all this is one?

My final questions: is God part of this unity? Or there is no God in your analysis? Moreover, when you say unity, are you getting rid of Descartes-like dualism? Is there another realm where Ideas may come from? Or are these last questions not even germane to the topic?

Thanks.

Best,
M.

### Re: Space as Limit and Possible Limit/ No limit

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:36 pm
Mnemoriam wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:08 pm Thanks for the suggestions. I had never considered paying much attention to Pythagoras (at least, not more than any of the other pre-socratics), but I’ll try to find something to read on him now that you mentioned.

With respect to Descartes, I guess I’ll have to form my own opinions; he is so important for subsequent Philosophy that I don’t think anyone can escape studying him.
That is true, just be wary of how he "geometrically" manifests his arguments through the application of "duals".
Besides, he seems to be such a nice and enthusiastic guy that I can’t help but want to read him:

(first paragraph of his “Meditations”)
The motive which induces me to present to you this Treatise is so excellent, and, when you become acquainted with its design, I am convinced that you will also have so excellent a motive for taking it under your protection, that I feel that I cannot do better, in order to render it in some sort acceptable to you, than in a few words to state what I have set myself to do."
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:38 am I appreciate the questions, so don't hold back on my account. Answering questions helps me see any actual and potential weaknesses in my argument/vocabulary/etc....so please at least for my sake don't hesitate to ask any questions...no matter how "simple" they make seem.
I thank you very much for that.

If that’s the case, maybe we could do it piecemeal? Sentence by sentence, perhaps, and keep at it until (i) I totally understand your words, either by my learning or by your rewording of your arguments, or, most probably, both; or (ii) I get a brain tumor for too much effort and quit; or (iii) you decide (quite correctly) that I have no metaphysical wiring in my brain, and quit?
Haha, okay.

If you choose to accept the mission, I would thus urge you to do something for me that I think will profit you too:

1 - You are allowed to use only terms that have already been established by you through the answers to my questions or if needed be, you must provide definitions;

2 - You can’t use double quotes in any explanation unless when simply used for emphasis.

If you agree….:

“What we understand of unity is fundamentally a "Holism" where there is no absence but rather what exists, exists as 1 in both quantity and quality as space."

Unity:

I found this quote from Einstein: “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” Would that be a good representation of what you mean by unit? I think you don't even use the word matter in your post, but I think that the concept of space without matter to me (and, it seems, to Einstein too), makes little sense.

I agree with the quote and go so far to say that time is space as movement, with movement being an inherent lack of stable unmoving structures. The lack of stability in these structures is a result of movement inherent within the dimensions themselves as "direction" through 1 dimensional lines and zero dimensional space. These 1 dimensional lines, exists as "relations" of zero dimensional points which act as divisors. As divisors they are not things in and of themselves but rather the observation of "nothingness" as the limit of being. In these respects the zero dimensional points, manifest the 1 dimensional lines (which compose all structures) as relations which exist as "approximations" of stable unmoving space. This stable unmoving space, would be equivalent to a theoretical ether. In these respects Space has a dual properties of Ether (which is stable, and infinite) and Relativistic Space (or apieronic space I call it) which exists as an approximation of the Ethereal space in the respect that it is the "limit" of this space.

Holism:

In Wikipedia, holism is defined as the “idea that systems and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not just as a collection of parts”. So, whatever exists, either quantities or qualities of whatever exists, is some sort of unified space?

I argue (and I want to emphasize I, because I have not found anyone yet arguing this point) that everything exists at one moment as one structural through a self-reflecting intradimensional point that is the Ether. This ether, as a 1 dimensional point reflects infinitum through further one dimensional points that are strictly structural extensions of this ethereal point. Since the Ether is one, these points are connected through a -1 dimensional line (which is imaginary, as no seperation exists) that allows these "infinite Points as Point" to manifest all realities, through form, at one perpetual causal moment.

In these respects the ether is a causal point which manifests effects strictly through causal points as ever-present cause. These approximate points, manifest a dual role of "randomness as approximation" in which randomness is a deficiency in structure akin to limit. In these respects the ether is equivalent to "infinity" as "limitless limit" and randomness is the boundary line as "non-existence". Randomness, in these respects is equivalent to a -1 dimensional line, as a deficiency in structure of the point, and is "imaginary".

Absence:

When you say absence, you mean sheer nothingness, an empty space, space without any intervening matter or ether or black matter or anything?
Absence is a deficiency in structure. Take for example: -1 is deficient in structure of 1, but is fundamentally an approximate observation of 1.

Space:

Cutting down your sentence, you say that “what exists, exists as space”, so what you mean is that space can be understood as the whole of reality, all the matter, energy, conscience (?), or whatever that exists; and that all this is one?

All exists as one, and multiplicity is merely relativistic measurement as approximation. In these respects, what we understand of as space is not equivalent to "emptiness" or some "open expanse", but rather "being" itself as structure through dimension.

My final questions: is God part of this unity? Or there is no God in your analysis? Moreover, when you say unity, are you getting rid of Descartes-like dualism? Is there another realm where Ideas may come from? Or are these last questions not even germane to the topic?

God is the unity, as this ethereal space can be argued as the unmoved aspect of God. The relativistic space can be argued as God through movement, as the mover. The synthesis of the Ether and Apieron, as Neutral Space can observe God as the "measurer" through application of dimensions that are both ethereal/apieronic and neither.

God could be observed as having a trifold nature of 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 with 1 = .99999. 1 in these respects is trifold in nature.

Thanks.

Best,
M.