Draft I Part II

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Draft I Part II

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

(page 1x) The truth, or rather perspective, that “all is relative” necessitates context as absolute as context occurs through everything as ‘that through which a phenomenon exists’. All parts of the whole exist through another part and as such this quality of ‘part through part’ repeats as an underlying quality of all phenomena and is unchanging. Absolute truth exists through context, context through relation, relation through connection. Absolute truth thus exists given all distinct phenomena connect through the fabric of being, because of the fabric of being, with this connection showing similarities, i.e. 'being' and form, repeat across said multiple phenomena.

This connection, as similarities, can be observed in the example of 2+2=3+1 where both sides of the equation, however different, connect through there sums as 4. 4 is the common phenomena which connects said equations. This can be observed further in a horse and blade of grass, both exist as composed of cells. "Cell" is the common phenomenon which connects said phenomena. This commonality, which allows various phenomena to equivocate, further necessitates somethings are not relative as they are unchanging in the respect that one thing changing into another thing requires a common bond between the original thing and that which changed. This lends itself to contradiction, or paradox depending on how one sees it, in the respect that all phenomenon exist as connected, through the underlying quality that is known as ‘being’ (and ‘being’ becomes an empty term, through its self-referentiality, but necessary pivotal term), thus necessitating a universal relativism but this relativism is absolute thus not universal. In other terms relativism is universal but this universality is absolute thus relativism is absolute.

This aspect of unchanging implies various phenomenon as having common sources which remain the same no matter how they are expressed. This sameness, through a common source, necessitates a contradiction within the argument when stepping outside of it, however, given the dualism between subject and object that occurs within any observation. This dualism is inevitable in the fact that it exists as a distinction within the act of observation itself; because this distinction of subject and object can be made through observation it, i.e. the distinction, exists whether or not it is fully true or partially true, ie ‘false’. In other words the distinction of subject and object exists because of the act of observation itself resulting in said distinction. This leads us to question observation itself under the following argument:

1. There is an observation, this observation (i.e. “there is an observation”) is subjective due to the angle of the observer.

2. The observation as subjective is an objective statement as the observation is observed through multiple angles that repeat the same thing, i.e. “x is subjective”.

3. The multiplicity of angles allows for objectivity, however this observation of objectivity is subjective due to the angle of the observer.

4. The subjectivity of point 3 in turn is objective as it results in point 4 given point 3 is observed through multiple angles, ie point 3 and point 4, thus allowing for objectivity in the respect that point 3 is seen repeatedly.

5. Subjectivity and Objectivity thus continue to alternate; subjectivity becomes objectivity, objectivity becomes subjectivity.

6. This alternation, as a loop, is both subjective and objective as this alternation is viewed through further alternation of subjectivity and objectivity.

7. The manifestation of subjectivity and objectivity necessitates a co-dependency upon the other as one results in the other.

8. This co-dependency is dependent upon the individuality or rather distinctions, i.e. singularness, in the states of subjectivity and objectivity. In other terms both ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’, or rather ‘subject’ and ‘object’, share the same quality known as ‘distinction’. This sharing of said quality necessitates a connection.

9. However a contradiction with point 8 ensues considering the individuality of both subjectivity and objectivity, as singular concepts, requires a contrast where one is not the other.

10. This nature of "one is not the other" necessitates a relationship, occurring between polar opposites which are not connect due to there individual natures, because of there relative contrast to one another, i.e. ‘contrast’ is a relationship even in the weakest of terms.

11. Separate phenomenon however connect through their change of one into another, ie the alternation addressed in points 5 and 6.

12. Connections thus occur through separation and separations occur through connections; this is a contradiction, if the relationship is viewed as an act of contrast through differentiation, and/or a paradox, if the relationship is viewed as a connection. Either perspective is valid thus leading to further contradiction/paradox.

13. Identity as grounded through subjective and objective perception necessitates perception as contradictory as the samething, i.e. observation, exists through multiple distinct states.

14. Perception as contradictory necessitates it as formless given an underlying gulf exists through subjectivity and objectivity; this gulf is dually not absent due to the codependency of subjectivity and objectivity thus there is both a gulf and absence of a gulf in observation.

15. This is a further contradiction but can be observed as a paradox (a unified contradiction).

The contradictory, or rather paradoxical, nature of observation leads us to question the nature of identity itself given identity, as a phenomenon, has a primary role in the nature of observation. So how to address the question “identity?” occurs.

1. I observe a phenomenon thus meaning occurs as this observation leads, i.e. is a "means", to another observation as another phenomenon.

2. This observation of meaning is observed as meaningful thus this observation leads, ie is a "means", to another observation.

3. This observation of observation occurs continuously thus resulting in a continuous loop; ie the loop is meaningful through self-reference given observation is directed towards observation.

4. The meaningfulness of self-reference is the self, or singularness of a phenomenon, directed towards the self. However this unity through self-reference leads to a contradiction as the self is fragmented between one self, i.e. one distinction, and another self, i.e. one distinction; in other terms to observe the self is to create a distinction between one self and another self thus resulting in multiplicity.

5. Meaningfulness manifests a fragmented nature, therefore is contradictory, given one self and another self is identified through the void between them; this contrast of one self and another self occurs where one phenomenon is void of said qualities within another phenomenon, this allows for individuality.

6. Meaningfulness is grounded in voidness in the respect that the directing of one phenomena, or self, to another phenomena, or self, requires a distinction between the two which occurs through change. This void is a point of change given the void between phenomena allows for one phenomenon to change into another phenomena; change allows for contrast, contrast allows for individuality, individuality allows for identity.

7. Void is thus the grounds of identity with the resulting contradiction of things, in itself, being absent of form as the opposition between assertions necessitates a void between them. The contradiction is an observation of formlessness.

Given void is the grounds for identity not only further contradiction follows, in regards to one making sense of reality, but a certain phenomenon of ‘truth as non-sensical’ or ‘truth beyond the senses’ occurs. Even certain statements or assertions, such as the assertion of the Law of Non-Contradiction, become contradictory upon further analysis when self-referentiality is applied, and this self-referentiality is necessary given ‘being occurring through being’ is self-referential and all occurs through ‘being’ as there is only ‘being’. For example: To say P=/=-P is to say men and women are not equal as men, P , are biologically different to women, -P, yet both are equal through their humanity. This example, at first glance, does not seem self-referential, however it is in the respect that both the positive P, in P=/=-P, and the negative P, in P=/=-P, both share the same quality of P which connects them. In other terms a square peg and a square hole both share the same quality of square, the square references itself across opposites.

This contradictory nature of reality is grounded in contrast and distinction (ie one thing standing apart from another) and as grounded in contrast and distinction is fundamentally relative in nature and leads us further to question ‘relativity’ itself.

If all is relative, including this statement being relative, then the statement is false under certain contexts, ie a context is true relative to one context but false relative to another, therefore not all is relative. An example of this occurring is the statement “All is relative” being relative only to itself thus being false as it becomes absent of meaning, i.e false as an absence of truth with ‘truth’ and ‘meaning’ being synonyms in this respect. “All is relative” is a contradiction in terms. Dually to state "if all is relative then this statement is relative" is to claim an unchanging absolute thus another contradiction occurs. In either case to relegate something to “all” or to create a universal results in contradiction. But “what of it?” with all of these contradictions?

1. Contradictions occur through opposition.

2. Opposition results in contrast.

3. Contrast occurs through the void of one set of qualities, within another set of qualities, with this void allowing for individual sets of qualities to occur in relation to eachother as distinctions (ie a square is not a circle but a square precisely because it has angles which are void from the circle).

4. This void is formlessness thus necessitating formlessness, through the void of one set of qualities in another through contrast, to be the grounds of definition through individuation with this “individuation” being another way of saying “singleness” or “distinction”.

5. Formlessness is necessary for a form to appear therefore contradiction, as an extending quality (or rather lack of) of said formlessness, is the grounds of being.

6. Contradiction is the grounds of being as contradiction underlies being.

7. Contradiction exists therefore existence ‘just is’. Reality can only be assumed as the distinctions which present themselves however these distinctions are grounded in void thus necessity this ‘just is’ nature as being both part of the senses and beyond them.

This “just is” nature of reality results in reality being presented to us for what it is through the empirical senses, a posteriori, and the abstract senses, a priori. Considering ‘is-ness’ can only be grounded in distinctions the reality beyond the senses points to the reality of the senses, through the contrast which follows, thus relegating truth as not only as ‘void’ but also ‘form’ as well. However to view only one side of this argument results in this nature of ‘form as existence’ as having its ‘problems’, if the word can even be used, too:

1. Reality is composed of forms, forms are limits.

2. A limit contains a phenomenon's void nature, it brings shape to that which is formless with the remainder of a phenomenon that is not defined through a form, or rather a shape, being fundamentally formless. An example of this is to imagine a cookie cutter: the reality is the dough which has be cut through the cutter while simultaneously being the remaining formless dough which has been left behind.

3. Shape is thus individuality where a phenomenon stands in contrast to what is formless; shape is an emergence of a single phenomenon, it is a distinction.

4. This contrast between form and formlessness is a contrast between singleness and nothing.

5. The contrast of point 4 observes a void between form and formlessness. Considering formlessness is void, this is equivalent to saying there is a void between the contradictory nature of void and form.

6. Point 5 is a contradiction as no void can exist between what is already void and that which has form as that would be saying another void exists between void and form and this void would contradictorily be a thing in the respect it is a distinction.

7. The contrast of form and formlessness is thus the negation of void as form and the negation of form as void if both are assumed through a perspective of dualism, i.e. non-monism. However, void is void of form and form is void of void thus this contrast of void and form self-negates, through the underlying quality of void which is shared, even though this contrast must necessarily occur from a perspective of dualism; this results in monism. The contrast of void and form contrasts to the opposite of ‘void as form and form as void’, this is a further contrast which self-negates the argument.

8. Truth is thus self-negation where one phenomena negates itself thus resulting in another phenomenon but this negation of one into another is negated as well; to speak of reality thus requires self-negating and relatively illogical statements.

As a result of the above arguments certain foundational perspectives of reality are put into question, in this case the foundational perspectives of monism and dualism:

1. There is one being.

2. In saying that there is one being the observer is saying it in contrast to many beings, ie deficiency of the oneness of being.

3. There are multiple beings.

4. In saying that there is multiple beings one is saying it in contrast to one being, ie deficiency of the multiplicity of being.

5. One state of being exists in contrast to another state of being with the contrast existing as being itself.

Under these terms, a simple assertion can be made to sum up the following arguments: “being is contradiction” and/or “being is paradoxical”. As such any discussions of reality, as a whole or as parts, are non-sensical thus necessitating a move beyond the senses, whether abstract or physical, if truth is to be obtained or rather if it can be obtained. Truth ‘just is’ or rather is ‘is-ness’. To say reality has no restrictions is to paradoxically place restrictions on it by defining it by what it is not. To say reality has only restrictions on it is to paradoxically result in an absence of restrictions as 'restriction' is undefined (as only restrictions exist thus leaving 'restriction' as meaning anything).
Post Reply