Void

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6051
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Void

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 pm

All experience is grounded in the assumption of forms, where a form is imprinted within the emptiness of the psyche. This emptiness is the absence of form which expands across both the consciousness, along with the subconsciousness by default, and the vastness of being. Void is the common median between that which is sensed abstractly and that which is sensed empirically.

Each form is a loop and as a loop maintains an intrinsic emptiness of form contained within it. All forms manifests this nature as a loop through multiple degrees.

1. It is a loop in the respect one phenomenon manifests through repetition across time and space. This repetition is the cycling of a phenomenon. This repetition of the phenomenon, as a cycling, is the containment of an intrinsic void through the movement across a void. This movement is one phenomenon existing in multiple states as a continuum. For example the movement of a particle from position A to position B is the containment of void where each repeated particle, as a new position, contains void between them. Void is contained through the same phenomenon existing in multiple states.

2. It is also a loop as its given outline always resorts to a loop. This is considering the tracing of any one form always results in the end as the same place as the beginning. For example the tracing of the shape of a man results in a loop considering the beginning trace at the head results in the trace ending in the same position it began. The overall form of a man is that of a loop, however this applies to any empirical form.

3. Finally it is always a loop given its identity of A=A, logically, is a loop. The assertion has the same beginning as it does the end. The assertion, of A=A, is defined further through a series of assertions it contains as part of its definition such as B=B, C=C, etc., thus one loop contains many. Logical statements necessitate one assertion as existing through many, thus while one loop of A=A represents one degree of looping, the repetition of one assertion through many assertions is another degree of loop reflective of point 1.

As assumed, form is imprinted upon the psyche and is repeated. This constitutes the "I". The "I", as composed of patterns, is a series of repeated patterns with each pattern as a loop as well as the repetition being a process of looping itself. This form, as existing through a loop as a loop, is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena.

All phenomena, as loops, act as filters to how we assume further patterns. Our psyche assumes patterns based upon priorly assumed patterns. These prior patterns, as empty considering they are loops, assume further patterns base upon what aligns with one pattern and which does not. Alignment is the repetition of a single form across a myriad of forms thus necessitating an underlying common base. This common base, where one form exists in multiple states, in itself is a loop.

The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns. For example, the pattern of "mammal" contains similar forms along a series of organisms that align across a continuum of said organisms. These similarities may be lungs, sexual reproduction, etc. This similarities of forms is an alignment of forms across a series of phenomenon. The absence of similarities is an absence of alignment. What determines the alignment of forms is the similarities and differences that compose the forms as further sub forms. Forms align through further forms which compose it. Each form is a set of loops within loops.

This applies abstractly, as well, within the realm of logic. The circular nature of A=A contains within its definition a series of further assertions such as B=B, C=C, etc. with each assertion being a variation of the original assertion. Each assertion aligns to a further assertion based upon its similarities and differences.


All assumption is a process of experience, this experience is a process of imprinting. This imprinting is the reception of loops and an ingraining of these patterns into the psyche.

Experience is the subjective nature to how we assume patterns where a series of patterns is imprinted within the "I" which is composed of a series of priorly existing patterns. The "I" is a series of loops which operating through a form of looping between the subject and object. A form is presented. It is assumed and further projected as another pattern and then reassumed. One loop is looped through many loops. Our ability to assume is what defines the self at any given moment. We are what we assume and the angle of assumption, as the angle of observation, necessitates subjectivity as being fundamentally bias.

All philosophy, and rational endeavors by default, are inherently bias. This bias is rooted in the inherent subjective angles an assertion is subject to. This bias necessitates an absence of progression past an inherent viewpoint except through the points of view already established as the bias itself.

Philosophical discussion is less about progressing past a viewpoint and more as the progression of an already established angle of observation. Even supposedly new "viewpoints" are mere variations of underlying viewpoints already established but underdeveloped.

It it this angle of observation that maintains itself as fundamentally the root of all philosophical dialect as the dialect itself. Two, or more, viewpoints converge for a period of time only to progressively diverge and reconverge over the topics established. Philosophy, and all rational endeavors, thus becomes a synthetic cycling between assertions. Thus, the convergence and divergence of viewpoints, or rather self evident truths as axioms, paradoxically lends itself to a viewpoint that supercedes the actions of philosophy as a whole and thus summating them under a single viewpoint. In simpler terms the cycling of viewpoints, between a thesis and antithesis, is in itself a viewpoint of viewpoints. This singular viewpoint, as the summation of a series of viewpoints, creates a paradox as no antithetical element to it can be presented other than a simple "no it is not true". An antiperspectivism stance is promoted, yet this in itself is a perspective, thus a contradiction occurs.

Philosophy, and all rational endeavors, are thus contradictory by their very nature, with the root of all contradictions occuring through the dualistic nature of dialectic itself. Philosophy becomes less a solution of contradictions as it becomes more of a promotion of contradiction for contradictions sake. The prime axiom of philosophy itself is contradiction through dialectic where solutions are less the anticipated course of philosophy but rather the maintainance of already held positions in the face of a antithetical state. The maintenance of an already held position is in fact the solution, this maintainance occurs through contradiction.

The prime purpose of philosophy, and all rational endeavors, reflects a form of self discovery, where the subjective point of view is reinforced against everything it is not. Philosophy thus takes the role of exploring a respective void where the already established point of view is tested and retested, in the face of continual obliteration, to reveal what goes on underneath. The argument or rational endeavor is a cycling of assertions around an intrinsic emptiness given all beginning viewpoints are assertions. These assertions, as a starting point, are all empty except for the loop of reasoning which occurs around them. Dialectic is thus rooted in a Nothingness, that all discourse hovers around, leading philosophy as a dynamic state of revealing the interior nuances of rational loops within an already established bias. It is the breakdown of rational loops into further rational loops.

Thus "the problem" is maintained as self evident because what is not self evident is what lies beneath "the problem". All assertions thus reflect a nature of being problematic as they are the means of dividing a proposition into further propositions in an effort to promote change. To make an assertion of "x" is to promote itself as a problem given what lies underneath is not evident. Each assertion, as a problem, is thus a means of change from one assertion into a other as the problem, as the assertion, is evident. Yet what underlies it is not evident thus leading to a form of progress from one assertion to another. This change is less of a change from one bias to another but the promotion of change within the bias itself.

The change from one bias to a more complex bias is the reflection of "being", that which exists through the perspective of the observer, in the face of a complete voiding of that very same "being". Philosophy thus takes a role as a self reflective property through the surgical analysis presented through the voiding of being. What voids an assertion is that which expands that very same assertion into a newer state of being. Dialectic thus takes the form of bias renewal with this bias renewal further necessitating that perspectives themselves, or one could say the core assertion behind those perspectives, are grounded in a dynamic change that leaves them as fundamentally formless at their root point. This emptiness is the assumptive capacity as the observer him or her self.

The dialectic thus takes the role of revealing what lies underneath the subconscious and giving it conscious form. It may even be taken a step further and said that the dialectic takes the role of revealing where the intended assertion is fundamentally empty of form and takes on a spontaneous nature given there is no formal method for determining the divergence of assumptions. Assumptions just diverge into new assumptions. This spontaneous nature, where the bias assertion is broken down to its core root, thus subjects the bias as a product of chance with this chance being the spontaneity of the order resulting from the break down of said assertion.

Dually the dialectic's means go far beyond finding and renewing the root of a bias proposition and goes well into the nature of its order as subject to a probabalism in which a viewpoint occurs because it is statistically inevitable to occur; this reflects a deep underlying nature of causality or determinism that results in the viewpoint itself.

On one hand the assertions diverge into new assertions randomly, and another respect the assertions do so through a probabalism. This may seem like a contraction at first but it is not. For example the assertion of "red" may progress to another grade of red as statistically inevitable, given one assertion progresses to a variation of the original premise. In a second respect the assertion results in a non red color which is fundamentally random given there is no actual formalism for determining how the assertion progresses in its variation.

One bias results in another bias and what occurs is a series of ever expanding spirals of reasoning all different in content yet sharing the exact same form from which they originate, that of the spiral. An assertion is halved into a thetical and antithetical element with this halving in turn occuring again and again where each thesis and antithesis is halved. For example the color red may be halved into a grade of red where this grade of red results in a thetical property of red itself and an antithetical quality of non red combined within it. In turn this grade of red is halved into another grade of red and non red color and the non red color is halved into other non red colors. This occurs for all assertions, thus the dialectic thus takes the form of a assertion division.

This division of the assertion occurs through its self expression in the face of a dialectical opposition which seeks to annihilate it. The opposition of the assertion is what breaks it down. For example "this color is red" when faced with the assertion "this is not red" results in the assertion of "this is a grade of red". One assertion when faced with its antithesis breaks down into another assertion.

This potential annihilation acts as the form of division which reforms the basic assertion by breaking it down to its base roots and rebuilding it back into a whole. For every assertion that is broken down, a series of assertions come in its place thus relegating philosophy to a cycling and recycling of assertions. The original bias state is thus reamplified through an expanded newer and newer form until the sheer magnitude of assertions, stemming from the original assertions, shatters the original assertion and a point zero in knowledge occurs.

The grounding of all assertions, as beginning points to further assertions, is founded in the assertion itself. The assertion has no formal system in determining its introduction other than the assertion by the observer. The assertion is subject to the angle of the observer. This angle of the observer is the formalism itself. It is what determines which phenomena act as an assertion and which do not.

As a formalism, the angle of the observer has a thetical and antithetical element. The thetical is that which is observed through the observer. The antithetical is that which is not observed through the observer.

Assertions are thus determined by a dualism between what is observed and what is not observed. This dualism forms the angle of observation itself where what is observed is a series of continuums which intersect at the point of non observation. For example I may observe the assertions of a horse and a landscape converge to form an image of a landscape with a horse on it. Both the horse and landscape are continuums: the horse is a series of parts, such as legs, head, etc. while the landscape is a series of parts, such as hills, grass, etc. What is not observed is what lies beyond this convergence of continuums. What is beyond the horse and the landscape is not observed. Thus where continuums, as a series of phenomenon which results in a whole, merge is a point in which phenomenon are not observed beyond them.


All arguments, as subject to the angle of the observer, are thus grounded in continuums. Considering the assertion has no set formalisms in determining what acts as the assertion and what does not, the formalism of the assertion is always a continuum. Formalism is continuity of the assertion from one state into another however there is no formalism in determining which assertion one begins with other than the continuum itself. In these respects all assertions, as subject to the point of the observer, are random in respect to subject, but formalized as continuums. Both the perspective and the continuity of the perspective, as the continuum, is the only formal manner in determining how or what an assertion is or becomes.

This continuum is the process of definition thus there is no statement that is not self contradictory given that each statement is a localization of a continuum thus representing a part of the whole. As representative of a part, each statement always requires some statement, unrepresented, beyond it. It is this absence of a complete representation that necessitates a contradiction in terms given that something is always provable by what is not provable.

(A --> B --> C --> (x)) with C being the final portion of the string and (x) being the unknown assertion beyond the string. The final variable of the string is always unproven.

However if (A--> B --> C --> A) the entire string is proven given through itself as a loop. However another outside string beyond it, required for proof, is accepted "as is" and is unproven.

Thus the statement as self referential is proven, however this self referential statement requires a self referential statement beyond it thus is simultaneously unproven.

All statements are both proven and unproven at the same time in different respects. Proof is dualistic.

With the increase in words comes an increase in contradictions. However with the increase in words, as an increase in contradictions, comes a necessary further increase in words to clarify the contradictions.

The volume of words is premised upon one thing expressed in a variety of ways. One phenomena as replicating does so as an adaptation to its inherent void. For example "x" has one meaning. This meaning is empty in and of itself thus it progresses to "y" where the relationship of "x" and "y" form eachother. "Y" and "x" are both empty on their own terms thus progressed to "z".

This emptiness is grounded in the circularity of the phenomenon where "x is x" and "y is y". Each term is an empty loop, and as an empty loop is determined by what phenomenon they progress to. This progression is the the process of definition where one word inverts to another symmetrical word allowing for the repetition of the original word. This same mode of functioning for words is the same form and function for the assertion itself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests