Assumptive Logic

[Skepdick]

"Through its insistence on definition" ... Form is definition and foundation.

No can do. Definitions are linguistic artefacts. Forms are geometric artefacts and geometry is language.

Thought, experience and phenomenology - all comes before any notion of language/definition.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Through its insistence on definition" ... Form is definition and foundation.

No can do. Definitions are linguistic artefacts. Forms are geometric artefacts and geometry is language.

Circular reasoning....language is thus an artefact of form, with language being a form, it is it's own artefact./color]

Thought, experience and phenomenology - all comes before any notion of language/definition.

Is this the foundation?

[Skepdick]

Circular reasoning....language is thus an artefact of form, with language being a form, it is it's own artefact

Circular reasoning doesn't exist. Time is linear.

Language is an artefact of minds. Minds create language.

Is this the foundation?

If you choose to interpret it that way. Yes.

[Eodnhoj7]

Circular reasoning....language is thus an artefact of form, with language being a form, it is it's own artefact

Circular reasoning doesn't exist. Time is linear.

Reasoning occurs through time, thus is always cycling the assumption of "finiteness".

Language is an artefact of minds. Minds create language.

And is the mind operates through symbols, is language mind?

Is this the foundation?

If you choose to interpret it that way. Yes.

So coherentism necessitates foundationalism as well?

[Skepdick]

Reasoning occurs through time, thus is always cycling the assumption of "finiteness".

To the best of my knowledge, nobody lives forever.

And is the mind operates through symbols, is language mind?

No, it doesn't. The mind expresses itself through symbols.

So coherentism necessitates foundationalism as well?

Like atheism necessitates theism.
Like good necessitates evil.
Like light necessitates dark.
Like up necessitates down.
Like truth necessitates falsity.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reasoning occurs through time, thus is always cycling the assumption of "finiteness".

To the best of my knowledge, nobody lives forever.

This is undefined and assumed.

And is the mind operates through symbols, is language mind?

No, it doesn't. The mind expresses itself through symbols.


But the mind is not it's own symbol if it assumes itself?

So coherentism necessitates foundationalism as well?

Like atheism necessitates theism.
Like good necessitates evil.
Like light necessitates dark.
Like up necessitates down.
Like truth necessitates falsity.

So foundationalism exists as defined?

[Skepdick]

This is undefined and assumed.

Well, tell you what. Reply to this post in 150 years to prove me wrong.

But the mind is not it's own symbol if it assumes itself?

Do you not distinguish between minds and the languages those minds speak?
Symbols are part of the language created by minds.

So foundationalism exists as defined?

Which answer do you want to hear?

[Eodnhoj7]

This is undefined and assumed.

Well, tell you what. Reply to this post in 150 years to prove me wrong.

How can you be proven wrong in 150 years if you may not remember the question?

But the mind is not it's own symbol if it assumes itself?

Do you not distinguish between minds and the languages those minds speak?
Symbols are part of the language created by minds.

And if the mind is formed by it, we are left with a circle.

So foundationalism exists as defined?

Which answer do you want to hear?

which answer is undefined in face of no choices. Does that mean, as undefined, the question is incoherent?

[Age]

In assuming what is useful as well as the nature of use...duh. Isnt that what logic does...give definition of use as a use unto itself?

Well, you know what they say - assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.

You can not logically say "problems exist" if you also say "every thing is assumed". But what you can do logically is say that you assume problems exist, even though you are completely unsure if problems actually do exist.

If you want to keep proposing and claiming what you have been, then you also have to admit that you do not know if problems actually exist or not.

The Truth IS problems CAN NOT fundamentally exist, to you. This is 'truth logicv, which, by the way, will always override any such thing as "assumptive logic".

[Eodnhoj7]

Well, you know what they say - assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.

You can not logically say "problems exist" if you also say "every thing is assumed". But what you can do logically is say that you assume problems exist, even though you are completely unsure if problems actually do exist.

If you want to keep proposing and claiming what you have been, then you also have to admit that you do not know if problems actually exist or not.

The Truth IS problems CAN NOT fundamentally exist, to you. This is 'truth logicv, which, by the way, will always override any such thing as "assumptive logic".

If everything is assumed, then so are problems, we assume "necessity" as assumption is necessary through assuming assumption.

Take this as a play on words, or not...best both.

Going to the origin of the thread, assumptions are inherently void in nature with assuming assumption being the voiding of void.

Considering all self evident truths are assumed, we can observed they exist as transitive states to further transitive states.

For example

1 + 1 = 2

I assume each of these symbols.

So using "•(x)" as an assumed context and "--->" as a progression to another assumption (which is an assumption) we can observe that each assumption is grounded in an inherent form that is fundamentally "void" considering it is assumed.

1 transfers to 1 through +, which transfers to 2 through =.

•((1)(+))--->•((1)(=))--->•(2)

•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

The above transition is correct form

So is

•(1)--->•(+)--->•(1)--->•(=)--->•(2)

•--->•--->•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

Both of the above are correct

So is

•(((((1)+)1)=)2)

As

---> as •

So on and so forth.

The manner in which the equation is assumed observes different transitive properties of one assumption to another as an assumption which assumption being an empty form in itself.

Standard linear reasoning composed of meta linear reasoning.

Regardless of how one is to assume each assumption as a context, group of contexts as an assumption, or whatever....each manner of assumption takes on an inherent form of various transitional properties that variate through eachother.


These transition properties, one assumption to another, are constant as forms and provide the foundation for how we reason however these "foundations" are so particular that they repeat as generalities where these generalities existing as particulars under a different assumed point of awareness.

Each symbol is thus subject to a transitive form to another symbol, as each symbol is an assumed context.

However each symbol as subject to transitive form is also a variation of a transitive form:

1 as

•(•0-->•0) as •(•--->•) as •--->• as •

Or

•(•1--->•1) ****same form above

Or

2-1=2. ***which replicates the same transitive forms above.


So when dealing with assumed truths, the transitive process maintain constant underlying forms, which even under variation transition to eachother through their own natures at a meta level.

We assume forms through assumption as form which is fundamentally empty in context as an assumption.

Logic at its foundations, ie its basic assumed axioms, is fundamentally empty context.

[Eodnhoj7]

And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.

You can not logically say "problems exist" if you also say "every thing is assumed". But what you can do logically is say that you assume problems exist, even though you are completely unsure if problems actually do exist.

If you want to keep proposing and claiming what you have been, then you also have to admit that you do not know if problems actually exist or not.

The Truth IS problems CAN NOT fundamentally exist, to you. This is 'truth logicv, which, by the way, will always override any such thing as "assumptive logic".

If everything is assumed, then so are problems, we assume "necessity" as assumption is necessary through assuming assumption.

Take this as a play on words, or not...best both.

Going to the origin of the thread, assumptions are inherently void in nature with assuming assumption being the voiding of void.

Considering all self evident truths are assumed, we can observed they exist as transitive states to further transitive states.

For example

1 + 1 = 2

I assume each of these symbols.

So using "•(x)" as an assumed context and "--->" as a progression to another assumption (which is an assumption) we can observe that each assumption is grounded in an inherent form that is fundamentally "void" considering it is assumed.

1 transfers to 1 through +, which transfers to 2 through =.

•((1)(+))--->•((1)(=))--->•(2)

•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

The above transition is correct form

So is

•(1)--->•(+)--->•(1)--->•(=)--->•(2)

•--->•--->•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

Both of the above are correct

So is

•(((((1)+)1)=)2)

As

---> as •

So on and so forth.

The manner in which the equation is assumed observes different transitive properties of one assumption to another as an assumption which assumption being an empty form in itself.

Standard linear reasoning composed of meta linear reasoning.

Regardless of how one is to assume each assumption as a context, group of contexts as an assumption, or whatever....each manner of assumption takes on an inherent form of various transitional properties that variate through eachother.


These transition properties, one assumption to another, are constant as forms and provide the foundation for how we reason however these "foundations" are so particular that they repeat as generalities where these generalities existing as particulars under a different assumed point of awareness.

Each symbol is thus subject to a transitive form to another symbol, as each symbol is an assumed context.

However each symbol as subject to transitive form is also a variation of a transitive form:

1 as

•(•0-->•0) as •(•--->•) as •--->• as •

Or

•(•1--->•1) ****same form above

Or

2-1=2. ***which replicates the same transitive forms above.


So when dealing with assumed truths, the transitive process maintain constant underlying forms, which even under variation transition to eachother through their own natures at a meta level.

We assume forms through assumption as form which is fundamentally empty in context as an assumption.

Logic at its foundations, ie its basic assumed axioms, is fundamentally empty context.

Instead of just math or logic (ie language) you can apply this to experience as well.


One memory, as assumed, is empty in itself and progresses to another memory as empty with this chain of memories being an empty context in itself.

•(•(M1)--->•(M2))

Even remembering memories as a memory is subject to this same nature.


•(•(•(M1)--->•(M2)))--->•(M3))


The same occurs with action and not action respectively where a dog is assumed, walking is assumed, the dog walking is assumed...etc.

Each of these transitive forms, grounded in assumption as assumption, existing as the same fundamental forms in infinite variation.

Thus the laws of logic and reason, even experience, necessitates a simultaneously randomness and order.

Randomness as continual variation of meta forms. Order as the continuity of the same basic forms. Empty context, symbolized as ⊙ considering its simultaneous linearism and circularity, is both meaningful and void.

Thus all logic, math and experience observed for what it truly is is strictly "mu" in nature...ie neither right nor wrong...yet right and wrong still exist as empty contexts.

Best to assume void, as assumption is void.

[Age]

And that is a bandwagon fallacy according to people who assume such fallacies. Fuck ups are assumed, much like problems. They exist, problems that is, fundamentally as assumptions.

You can not logically say "problems exist" if you also say "every thing is assumed". But what you can do logically is say that you assume problems exist, even though you are completely unsure if problems actually do exist.

If you want to keep proposing and claiming what you have been, then you also have to admit that you do not know if problems actually exist or not.

The Truth IS problems CAN NOT fundamentally exist, to you. This is 'truth logicv, which, by the way, will always override any such thing as "assumptive logic".

If everything is assumed, then so are problems, we assume "necessity" as assumption is necessary through assuming assumption.

Take this as a play on words, or not...best both.

Going to the origin of the thread, assumptions are inherently void in nature with assuming assumption being the voiding of void.

Considering all self evident truths are assumed, we can observed they exist as transitive states to further transitive states.

For example

1 + 1 = 2

I assume each of these symbols.

So using "•(x)" as an assumed context and "--->" as a progression to another assumption (which is an assumption) we can observe that each assumption is grounded in an inherent form that is fundamentally "void" considering it is assumed.

1 transfers to 1 through +, which transfers to 2 through =.

•((1)(+))--->•((1)(=))--->•(2)

•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

The above transition is correct form

So is

•(1)--->•(+)--->•(1)--->•(=)--->•(2)

•--->•--->•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

Both of the above are correct

So is

•(((((1)+)1)=)2)

As

---> as •

So on and so forth.

The manner in which the equation is assumed observes different transitive properties of one assumption to another as an assumption which assumption being an empty form in itself.

Standard linear reasoning composed of meta linear reasoning.

Regardless of how one is to assume each assumption as a context, group of contexts as an assumption, or whatever....each manner of assumption takes on an inherent form of various transitional properties that variate through eachother.


These transition properties, one assumption to another, are constant as forms and provide the foundation for how we reason however these "foundations" are so particular that they repeat as generalities where these generalities existing as particulars under a different assumed point of awareness.

Each symbol is thus subject to a transitive form to another symbol, as each symbol is an assumed context.

However each symbol as subject to transitive form is also a variation of a transitive form:

1 as

•(•0-->•0) as •(•--->•) as •--->• as •

Or

•(•1--->•1) ****same form above

Or

2-1=2. ***which replicates the same transitive forms above.


So when dealing with assumed truths, the transitive process maintain constant underlying forms, which even under variation transition to eachother through their own natures at a meta level.

We assume forms through assumption as form which is fundamentally empty in context as an assumption.

Logic at its foundations, ie its basic assumed axioms, is fundamentally empty context.

So, do you still say, and insist, "problems exist"?

[Age]

If everything is assumed, then ...

The trouble you are going to have forever is working out if every thing is assumed or not, and until you can work that out you are left in the unknowing state that you are in now.

I, however, do not have any such trouble.

I also, by the way, do not see nor have any problems like you see and have.

[Eodnhoj7]

You can not logically say "problems exist" if you also say "every thing is assumed". But what you can do logically is say that you assume problems exist, even though you are completely unsure if problems actually do exist.

If you want to keep proposing and claiming what you have been, then you also have to admit that you do not know if problems actually exist or not.

The Truth IS problems CAN NOT fundamentally exist, to you. This is 'truth logicv, which, by the way, will always override any such thing as "assumptive logic".

If everything is assumed, then so are problems, we assume "necessity" as assumption is necessary through assuming assumption.

Take this as a play on words, or not...best both.

Going to the origin of the thread, assumptions are inherently void in nature with assuming assumption being the voiding of void.

Considering all self evident truths are assumed, we can observed they exist as transitive states to further transitive states.

For example

1 + 1 = 2

I assume each of these symbols.

So using "•(x)" as an assumed context and "--->" as a progression to another assumption (which is an assumption) we can observe that each assumption is grounded in an inherent form that is fundamentally "void" considering it is assumed.

1 transfers to 1 through +, which transfers to 2 through =.

•((1)(+))--->•((1)(=))--->•(2)

•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

The above transition is correct form

So is

•(1)--->•(+)--->•(1)--->•(=)--->•(2)

•--->•--->•--->•--->• as •--->• as •

Both of the above are correct

So is

•(((((1)+)1)=)2)

As

---> as •

So on and so forth.

The manner in which the equation is assumed observes different transitive properties of one assumption to another as an assumption which assumption being an empty form in itself.

Standard linear reasoning composed of meta linear reasoning.

Regardless of how one is to assume each assumption as a context, group of contexts as an assumption, or whatever....each manner of assumption takes on an inherent form of various transitional properties that variate through eachother.


These transition properties, one assumption to another, are constant as forms and provide the foundation for how we reason however these "foundations" are so particular that they repeat as generalities where these generalities existing as particulars under a different assumed point of awareness.

Each symbol is thus subject to a transitive form to another symbol, as each symbol is an assumed context.

However each symbol as subject to transitive form is also a variation of a transitive form:

1 as

•(•0-->•0) as •(•--->•) as •--->• as •

Or

•(•1--->•1) ****same form above

Or

2-1=2. ***which replicates the same transitive forms above.


So when dealing with assumed truths, the transitive process maintain constant underlying forms, which even under variation transition to eachother through their own natures at a meta level.

We assume forms through assumption as form which is fundamentally empty in context as an assumption.

Logic at its foundations, ie its basic assumed axioms, is fundamentally empty context.

So, do you still say, and insist, "problems exist"?

Problems are assumed.

[Eodnhoj7]

If everything is assumed, then ...

The trouble you are going to have forever is working out if every thing is assumed or not, and until you can work that out you are left in the unknowing state that you are in now.

I, however, do not have any such trouble.

I also, by the way, do not see nor have any problems like you see and have.

Not really, as assuming I am assuming is a constant which manifests itself in a variety of ways.

The above is strictly a transitive proof that logic, math and language are inherently empty.