For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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


Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:03 pm


It is this nature of phenomena existing through definition as curvature which necessitates being as taking on a nature of language itself given that language is a series of symbols which define further symbols with each symbol existing fundamentally as a form. Language is symbols, and symbols are forms, thus stepping back and taking a broader perspective of language it is a series of forms. Reality, as forms, and language, as forms, necessitates reality as its own language when looked at from a distance. Both reality and language are mediated through forms.

In these respects language occurs through a given form and a given form alone as the progression of one context to another.. It is this form that determines the truth value of language thus breaking language into a dichotomy of dialectic and rhetoric. This dichotomy occurs through the aforementioned principles of isomorphism and recursion.

According to the common definitions:

Rhetoric is "persuasive speach" as the repetition of assertions into a given form.

Dialectic is "sorting truth from opinion" as the divergence of assertions, one into another through isomorphism.

Truth is what persuades the justifiability of any and all opinion, and as such it is rhetorical in nature as the interplay of opinions sets the necessary definition to what something is and is not.

This tension of "being" and "nonbeing" resulting in definition is the persuasive power of any and all truth and as such necessitates dialog as an exhibition of force.

This force simply is form, this form being a continuum we call quality where any and all truth is irrational until it is divided into parts. This division, while a continuum in itself, into parts is the tautology that lends itself into an inherent circularity where one proposition is observed through many.

Philosophy is thus grounded into who can make the most impenetrable sphere of reasoning on any given point, yet fails to admit to this geometric origin as the sole underlying factor that determines its success or failure.

Dialect, in its continual atomism, not just negates itself under a perpetual manner of "assuming through division", but it effectively leads to the very multiplication of problems and languages its seeks to avoid. It is contradictory by nature with contradiction reflecting a basic seperation or tension of propositions.

Even the standard dialect, embodied through debate, never results in a form of agreement between parties but rather a creation of further tautologies that justify each parties stance. Under these terms it merely acts as a form of self-persuasion and the creation of a logical sphere allowing further dialect to bounce off any given stance when reinforced well enough by its recurssion of tautologies... or recursion of recursion.

In these respects the nature of Rhetoric, as persuasive, gains its groundings in a form of hypnotism where the same thing is repeated again and again from different angles. This hypnosis, through repitition, is the nature of truth itself where what is deemed true is observed as such if it is persuasive.

Dialectic is thus a self negating universal "or" function of the psyche, continually dividing assumptions until rhetoric is given form by uniting this chaotic mess of assertions much in the same manner a religious ritual gives rise to unity in the psyche or between groups.

Rhetoric is thus a process of binding, with its persuasive quality being grounded in the simple presentation of a form. This form, persuasive by nature due to its self referential quality, acts as a filter through which one percieves the world and a such negates the dialectic as having any coherent value in and of itself other than a strict creation of perpetual fallacies that even it falls into.

The grounds of philosophy, and knowledge through language, is in "assumption".

This assumption, as without thought or form, is void and akin to an intellectual vaccuum. What is assumed is taken without thought. You heard this state before...nothing new.

The dialectic and rhetoric, which revolves around these key assumptions, does in fact revolve like a spiral around these key assumptions in an effort not to elaborate and clarify them...but rather contain them and hide them.

Any progressive definition, negates the old, causing not just empty terminology but effectively a morphing of language into a vortex in both form and function.

This also occurs, specifically speaking the "nihilistic tendencies" of excessive language, with the spiral nature of the scientific method where the emphasis on "facts", that are continually negated for new facts, effectively leaves knowledge itself as meaningless.

It is the redefinition of language, through continual dialectic and rhetoric, that results in the very language trying to contain its hidden baseless nature as fundamentally causing it.

Philosophy, specifically the modern post presocratic sense, is story creation. Whoever gives the greatest degree of definition creates a story. This story is embodied within the psyche, forming and guiding perspective, and takes on a God complex.

The greater the definition the greater the philosopher. With the increase in definitions comes an increase in interpretations. Thus philosophers such as Kant or Neitzche are "great" not because of the great degree of detail, but because this great degree of detail allows for a variety of interpretations that can equivocate to anything.

They are great because when we see them we see "us", and this mirror results in the narcissus myth hidden behind the nature of much of logic and reason.

Grind a stone to dust. Grind a fact to atomic facts.
Melt the dust. Melt the facts.
....and you get a glass mirror.

In these respects philosophy takes on a ritualistic nature of creating symbols, with these symbols being gods as they direct the psyche. Symbolism, is god creation. Definition, or rather story telling, is the worship of these gods.

This symbol creation is the creation of analogies.

Analogies are phenomena.

All phenomenon, including analogies, exist as part of a continuum of phenomenon.

This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

All phenomenon, including analogies, lead to further phenomenon.

All phenomenon exist as parts of a continuum because one phenomenon changes into another.

This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum. Why? Because phenomenon are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself.

It is this expression of analogies which lends intelligence as subject to infinite grades. One can have no "skill" in math or language, but possess the skill to create a sculpture out of "x" random material, or to manipulate other's in converations (or dually be empathetic), with each of these respective skills having degrees of "intelligence" as subsets (ie one may be a genius with metal, but not plastic or one may be skilled with certain personalities, but not other's). Each facet of being is an analogy to another as different facets of the same thing.

The best proof of intelligence is creativity, the ability to take "nothing" and invert it into "something".

This is the origin of the word "genius": "gen"

Generate (en"gin"eer)
Genie (create a reality through a wish)
Genes (embodying a spiral form which resonates with "creation" at the symbolic level)

It is this act of creation being through the creation of definition that necessitates "definitions" as "gods" given that each definition is an apex of multiple existing phenomenon.

This may seem obscure at first.

When we define something, we encapsulate it into something we can relate to. This definition in turn acts a guiding measure for our lives, much like a god. We see this with basic prayers or mantras to a lesser God, where some element is the pscyhe the god represents is viewed as an entity in itself.

So a person praying to the God of war, is actually meditating on the nature of war and embodying these patterns (courage, intelligence, etc.). These patterns, when anthropormized, are Gods. These Gods are the mythos or stories of interplaying aspects of the psyche.

The pattern, when not viewed as anthropomorphized, are the logos or "word", "plan". This at its core is just symbolism. Words are symbols, symbols are patterns. Plans are definitions through words, thus patterns as well. So when worshipping the "God of War" the pscyhe assumes patterns and integrates them.

A basic pattern under this would be just "divergence" or the ability to take one thing and reduce it to multiple states. We see this in war, it is taking one side and reducing it to parts. Thus we seek how a God of War may have as sibling the God of Wisdom or "analysis" considering this same process of divergence manifests itself in a variety of manners.

Thus these stories, or definitions of reality, are created gods we worship by assuming there basic behavior and losing oneself to this behavior. This loss of self to the "god" is an act of sacrifice, and in a simpler agrarian culture where one worked and was paid in food, the sacrifice of food was a sacrifice of a part of there inherent identity in these simpler times.

They are reaching deep into the subconsciousness and pulling out basic archetypal patterns and embodying them by sacrifice.

Stories are gods and gods are stories. They are worshiped or "praised" when they are told.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests