The Failure of the Absolute and the Relative.

[Eodnhoj7]

This statement is its own limit; hence exists under possible further statements. This statement is both Absolute and Relative.

Discuss.

[Dontaskme]

This statement is its own limit; hence exists under possible further statements. This statement is both Absolute and Relative.

Discuss.

Knowledge is always relative to the Absolute. No one can know they know. There is only knowing. Absolute knowing.

The Absolute has no relationship to itself. Therefore, there is no relative reality. Relativity is the block of the Absolute.

"To expound and propagate concepts is simple.
But to drop all concepts is difficult and rare."

.

[Eodnhoj7]

This statement is its own limit; hence exists under possible further statements. This statement is both Absolute and Relative.

Discuss.

Knowledge is always relative to the Absolute. No one can know they know. There is only knowing. Absolute knowing.

The Absolute has no relationship to itself. Therefore, there is no relative reality. Relativity is the block of the Absolute.

"To expound and propagate concepts is simple.
But to drop all concepts is difficult and rare."

.

"Knowledge is always relative to the absolute" is also an absolute statement.

Relativitistic knowing, as approximation of the absolute, observes an inversion of the Absolute Unity into relating units which exist through eachother ad-infinitum with this inversion of the absolute into the relative happening through nothingness as a point of inversion.

[Dontaskme]

This statement is its own limit; hence exists under possible further statements. This statement is both Absolute and Relative.

Discuss.

Knowledge is always relative to the Absolute. No one can know they know. There is only knowing. Absolute knowing.

The Absolute has no relationship to itself. Therefore, there is no relative reality. Relativity is the block of the Absolute.

"To expound and propagate concepts is simple.
But to drop all concepts is difficult and rare."

.

"Knowledge is always relative to the absolute" is also an absolute statement.

Relativitistic knowing, as approximation of the absolute, observes an inversion of the Absolute Unity into relating units which exist through eachother ad-infinitum with this inversion of the absolute into the relative happening through nothingness as a point of inversion.

Yes, I agree.

Is the nothingness the centreless centre of which everything revolves?

[Eodnhoj7]

Knowledge is always relative to the Absolute. No one can know they know. There is only knowing. Absolute knowing.

The Absolute has no relationship to itself. Therefore, there is no relative reality. Relativity is the block of the Absolute.

"To expound and propagate concepts is simple.
But to drop all concepts is difficult and rare."

.

"Knowledge is always relative to the absolute" is also an absolute statement.

Relativitistic knowing, as approximation of the absolute, observes an inversion of the Absolute Unity into relating units which exist through eachother ad-infinitum with this inversion of the absolute into the relative happening through nothingness as a point of inversion.

Yes, I agree.

Is the nothingness the centreless centre of which everything revolves?

From a relativistic perspective, yes, as a 0d point is merely a means of inversion and not a thing in itself. From a perspective of absolute unity, with all existence existing through a 1d point through infinite 1d points as 1 1d points...the 1d point as the center of everything from which all being exists is quite literally everywhere; hence all being is the center of being.

[Dontaskme]

"Knowledge is always relative to the absolute" is also an absolute statement.

Relativitistic knowing, as approximation of the absolute, observes an inversion of the Absolute Unity into relating units which exist through eachother ad-infinitum with this inversion of the absolute into the relative happening through nothingness as a point of inversion.

Yes, I agree.

Is the nothingness the centreless centre of which everything revolves?

From a relativistic perspective, yes, as a 0d point is merely a means of inversion and not a thing in itself. From a perspective of absolute unity, with all existence existing through a 1d point through infinite 1d points as 1 1d points...the 1d point as the center of everything from which all being exists is quite literally everywhere; hence all being is the center of being.

I agree.

And does the 1d project a 2d image, known as a 3d world? ..or not?

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, I agree.

Is the nothingness the centreless centre of which everything revolves?

From a relativistic perspective, yes, as a 0d point is merely a means of inversion and not a thing in itself. From a perspective of absolute unity, with all existence existing through a 1d point through infinite 1d points as 1 1d points...the 1d point as the center of everything from which all being exists is quite literally everywhere; hence all being is the center of being.

I agree.

And does the 1d project a 2d image, known as a 3d world? ..or not?

.

If with look at the 2d it is the foundation of multiplicity through an inversion of the 1d in the respect a form of change occurs as repitition, with this repition leading to the multipicity observing an inherent form of approximation.

The 2d observes an inherent polarity, through relativism in which 1 is directed towards itself in 2 manners with this self-direction acting as a boundary of change.

Now if 1 is directed to itself through infinite numbers this infinite direction observes 1 as infinite direction considering one exists if and only if it is direct, as observed in the example of 2 existing as an extension of 1 folding into itself.

Hence the continual progression of 1 to 2 to 3 ad-infinitum through 1 exists as 1 and in these respects is constant.

The observation of 2 however, observes an approximation of this unified absolute as the relation of parts whose continual relations define them as parts, with 2 always observing a degree of seperation in the respect it is "even" and the "odd" provides a unifying median. If we observe a continual progression of evens an inherent degree of division becomes evidence as no medial point is present through the opposing poles.

Polarity is seperation through relativity as infinite division resulting in a simultaneous multiplicity.

In these respects 1 as odd represents a self-sustained no change as it continual maintains its own nature through a medial point from which everything extends and circulates back to as a form of continual unity through circularity.

1, and the odd, is always directed back towards itself as the odd always presents a center from which all things extend from and through, hence inherently circulate back to in the respect all "1"'s as odd are the center regardless of the arrangment of the 1's in an odd number. For example I may have seven oranges. I may rearrange the oranges, but this rearrangement always places the odd 1 as center as existing as a medial point.

2 represents a continual projection past the origins, through the even, as change in the respect is observes an inherent polarity where a continual projection past the origins is observed through a lack of mediation as a form of continual seperation as the foundation for multiplicity. For example I may have 4 oranges. I may rearrange the oranges, but this rearrangment always places the even 1 not as the center point but existing through a progression.

2, and the even, is always directed away from itself.

The 2 dimensional observes an inherent change through up/down and left/right in the respect an infinite number of grades exists between them; hence an unlimited number of divisions occur in the respect the polarity of these axis creates an "abyss" so to speak.

The 3 dimension, as depth, observes an inherent unification of this perpetual change in the respect both vertical and horizontal movement both extend from and through depth as a mediator which unites this change as a simultaneous constant where the "abyss" caused by the relation of two axise's is negated in the respect a localization of form occurs through the observation of depth.

Now these this observation of depth, as the localization of a dualism between vertical and horizontal duals, maintains the duals while simutlaneously maintaining the foundation of the duals as 1 changing through itself as both change and no-change. The field represented by the duals has no form, however the observation of depth gives form to the formless.

Now horizon, vertice and depth, as the foundation of 3 dimensions creates its own non-localized field inherent within it, but this field is localized under these very same boundaries where before through the two axis it extends ad-finititum through the angle and inherently has no form. Depth helps give boundary to the change.

So I may have x vertice and y horizon with an infinite number of points between them. However if I pick a point between the x and y axis, this infinite number of space between them is localized and stabilized as depth which acts as a form of synthesis.

Take for example, cover one eye and do not move. Everything exists as 2 dimensional through 1 image.

Now remove your hand, and the second eye observes a different angle to the same reality (observing both simultaneously) so that these two images exist simultaneously to eachother, but are mediated through an inherent depth from which a form of mediation in present in the respect reality becomes fuller and more expansive. This fullness, observed through depth observes all movement mediate from a center point of no-change as depth itself. So fixing ones' gaze into a point of depth, this depth remains constant while the reality around it moves. In a seperate respect if one is to focus on the horizon and vertice of a view, these remain constant while the depth continually changes.

This fullness observes a greater degree of unity, from which both vertice and horizon are mediated through a center point of depth with this depth (if focused as a point of origin) observing both horizon and vertice move around it. In a seperate respect we can observe the point of depth change if both vertice and horizon are viewed as unchanging.

In these respects the 3 dimension acts as point of stability through which all change is observed as an approximation of this stability while simultaneously providing a point of change through which all stability is observed.

This "change" and "no-change" is a dualism in itself however and both exist through and from limit as "both/and" and "neither/nor" as 1 and 0 with 1 existing as 1 and 0 being observed only through 1 and canceling itself out through 1 as 1 number in itself that exist relative to 1 through 1 as 1.



Some of this may have to be reworded or expounded upon...as it may not seem clear.

[Dontaskme]

Thanks for your reply Eodnhoj7

I will have to read this many times over, but what I've read so far.. I like.

.