There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

1. The distinction between appearance and a thing in itself is negated where all appearances are things in themselves given they exist through impressionable forms. An appearance is an act of distinction where one phenomenon stands out in contrast to another, in this case being stands out in contrast to Nothingness or being stands out in contrast to further being.

2. This distinction necessitates the appearance, as that of contrast, as a thing in itself given it exists in itself under a self referential loop where being self references in contrast to Nothingness as only being exists. This self referentiality is further reflected where being stands in contrast to further being given that which is distinct acts as the beginning and end point of the phenomena it exists in contrast too given one phenomenon is observed through another.

3. This self referentiality, as a loop, sets the premise for being in itself as grounded in form. This is further reflected in that the very same phenomena, as appearance, are traceable forms given the beginning point of the phenomena are the same as the end point which is not just the phenomena itself, as both the beginning and end of a traceable loop form, but the phenomena themselves as both the beginning and end points to further phenomena. This form as a loop in itself and the looping between forms necessitates a self-referentialiy where an appearance is a thing in itself.

4. Yet this distinction of a "thing in itself" reflects that the phenomena as a point of change to another phenomenon due to its contrasting nature. Given an appearance only exists through contrast the nature of the thing in itself is one of fundamental emptiness given no one phenomenon exists on its own. To point out a distinction is to point out the change of one phenomenon to another much in the same manner where a man of distinction is one who changes from what is normal thus offering a different paradigm of behavior.

5. Dually this distinction necessitates an inherent dualism within the phenomenon, due to the nature of contrast, where one phenomenon must stand out relative to another thus necessitating not only a multitude of phenomena, with the multitude beginning with two phenomena at minimum, but being standing out against Nothingness. This contrast mandates an emergence of phenomena as that which projects from a previously formless state. This projection from a previously formless state in turn projects back into and is recieved by that which is formless thus necessitating an act of impression of forms which occurs through a loop. The inherent emptiness of one form in itself is the means in which it is impressed by another form.

6. These impressionable forms are that which are imprinted. This imprinting is grounded in the assumption of the form as the recieving of form. The reception of form is the act of taking a previously formless state and inverting it into one of form. The form repeats itself through nothingness thus necessitating a recursion where the form encapuslates nothing leaving only being as existing. The repetition of being is the encapsulation of what is formless through form. An example of this would be a cookie cutter as being composed of form at its outer edges but its inner state being one of formlessness. The emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for its ability to project a form onto a further blank state, that of the dough. Dually this emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for the traceable outline of the cookie cutter itself to take shape.

7. In impressing a form onto a blank state, one can say a void, comes the projection of that said form through the nothingness where the act of imprinting of said form is the repetition of projection of said form. An example of this would be a rock imprinting sand. The sand as imprinted by the rock leaves an impression as the indent with this indent being a projection of the form of the rock through the sand thus leaving not only the rock as a form but this form of the rock as repeated through the sand.

8. One form repeats through another form as an isomorphic impression given any state of impression is that of a projection of one form repeating itself through further projections. All appearances as fundamentally empty necessitate each appearance as a thing in itself given it is distinct. This distinction is the point of change from one being into another as a repetition of that said being into a newer state. To say a phenomenon is individual or unique is to say it is a point of change thus empty in itself.

9. That which is percieved happens in accords to the angle in which it observed thus necessitating all appearances are things in themselves, as points of change from one phenomenon to another, given each appearance is a grade of some other phenomenon as pointing to that phenomenon.

10. In pointing to some other phenomenon a contrast occurs thus necessitating a distinction between one phenomenon and another where each phenomenon as distinct is that which points to another as a mode of change in itself.

11. The intrinsic emptiness of the individual phenomenon, on its own terms, necessitates individuality as distinction and this distinction being one of a singularity where one phenomenon points to another under a self referential loop. In standing apart on its own terms, through a contrast with another phenomenon, the phenomenon becomes in inherently empty in itself yet exists through a self referentiality that binds this emptiness under a looping/circular form. This self referential loop is the individuality of one set of phenomenon as pointing to itself through the emptiness of each of its individual states.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

X
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Define what you meant by things-in-themselves?
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Advocate »

All things are a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern.

There are no things in and of themselves. Each thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions, none of which are either completely explicit or completely agreed, which is why they can only be judged as certain Enough for a given purpose.

The Actual universe is undifferentiated stuff but the Apparent universe is things, interpreted through three distinct layers, biological, cultural, and psychological.
Last edited by Advocate on Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:42 am Define what you meant by things-in-themselves?
That which stands in contrast to something else.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Advocate wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 2:01 pm All things are a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern.

There are no things in and of themselves. Each thing is a set of attributes and boundary conditions, none of which are either completely explicit or completely agreed, which is why they can only be judged as certain Enough for a given purpose.

The Actual universe is undifferentiated stuff but the Apparent universe is things, interpreted through there distinct layers, biological, cultural, and psychological.
All patterns are distinctions of one thing against another where the pattern is the replication of certain boundaries, limits, or qualities that stand apart through a contrast. Patterns are distinctions.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Advocate »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:27 am All patterns are distinctions of one thing against another where the pattern is the replication of certain boundaries, limits, or qualities that stand apart through a contrast. Patterns are distinctions.
That sounds like basically the same thing to me. Really it's all boundary conditions but when they're particularly explicit we call them attributes. All of those things - anything which can be quantified relatively, is pragmatically identical to a dimension.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:42 am Define what you meant by things-in-themselves?
That which stands in contrast to something else.
Black in contrast to white and each other,
so black and white are things-in-themselves?

Things-in-themselves literally are things that exist in or by themselves, i.e. absolutely independent and unconditioned by anything else.
No thing can exists totally unconditioned because everything in reality is conditioned by other things and the whole of reality.
As such it is impossible for things-in-themselves to exists in reality.

Things-in-themselves at most can only be thought and assumed fictitiously for various discussions.
Impenitent
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Impenitent »

no distinction... ever meet a person who was color blind?

-Imp
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Impenitent wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:45 am no distinction... ever meet a person who was color blind?

-Imp
Contrasting blacks, whites and greys.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 5:42 am Define what you meant by things-in-themselves?
That which stands in contrast to something else.
Black in contrast to white and each other,
so black and white are things-in-themselves?

Things-in-themselves literally are things that exist in or by themselves, i.e. absolutely independent and unconditioned by anything else.
No thing can exists totally unconditioned because everything in reality is conditioned by other things and the whole of reality.
As such it is impossible for things-in-themselves to exists in reality.

Things-in-themselves at most can only be thought and assumed fictitiously for various discussions.
2. This distinction necessitates the appearance, as that of contrast, as a thing in itself given it exists in itself under a self referential loop where being self references in contrast to Nothingness as only being exists. This self referentiality is further reflected where being stands in contrast to further being given that which is distinct acts as the beginning and end point of the phenomena it exists in contrast too given one phenomenon is observed through another.




There is no phenomenon which exists independent of anything else. Black is observed in relationship to white, as well as the other colors.

To say white is a thing in itself is to mark it as a point of change from one phenomenon to another due to contrast.

A thing in itself is that which exists through a distinction, it is the point of change from one phenomenon to another given its intrinsic emptiness due to its dependence on something else.

A thing in itself is a point of change from one phenomenon to another.
Impenitent
Posts: 2995
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Impenitent »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:49 pm
Impenitent wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:45 am no distinction... ever meet a person who was color blind?

-Imp
Contrasting blacks, whites and greys.
what color is the appearance and which is the color of the apple?

-Imp
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by bahman »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:47 am 1. The distinction between appearance and a thing in itself is negated where all appearances are things in themselves given they exist through impressionable forms. An appearance is an act of distinction where one phenomenon stands out in contrast to another, in this case being stands out in contrast to Nothingness or being stands out in contrast to further being.

2. This distinction necessitates the appearance, as that of contrast, as a thing in itself given it exists in itself under a self referential loop where being self references in contrast to Nothingness as only being exists. This self referentiality is further reflected where being stands in contrast to further being given that which is distinct acts as the beginning and end point of the phenomena it exists in contrast too given one phenomenon is observed through another.

3. This self referentiality, as a loop, sets the premise for being in itself as grounded in form. This is further reflected in that the very same phenomena, as appearance, are traceable forms given the beginning point of the phenomena are the same as the end point which is not just the phenomena itself, as both the beginning and end of a traceable loop form, but the phenomena themselves as both the beginning and end points to further phenomena. This form as a loop in itself and the looping between forms necessitates a self-referentialiy where an appearance is a thing in itself.

4. Yet this distinction of a "thing in itself" reflects that the phenomena as a point of change to another phenomenon due to its contrasting nature. Given an appearance only exists through contrast the nature of the thing in itself is one of fundamental emptiness given no one phenomenon exists on its own. To point out a distinction is to point out the change of one phenomenon to another much in the same manner where a man of distinction is one who changes from what is normal thus offering a different paradigm of behavior.

5. Dually this distinction necessitates an inherent dualism within the phenomenon, due to the nature of contrast, where one phenomenon must stand out relative to another thus necessitating not only a multitude of phenomena, with the multitude beginning with two phenomena at minimum, but being standing out against Nothingness. This contrast mandates an emergence of phenomena as that which projects from a previously formless state. This projection from a previously formless state in turn projects back into and is recieved by that which is formless thus necessitating an act of impression of forms which occurs through a loop. The inherent emptiness of one form in itself is the means in which it is impressed by another form.

6. These impressionable forms are that which are imprinted. This imprinting is grounded in the assumption of the form as the recieving of form. The reception of form is the act of taking a previously formless state and inverting it into one of form. The form repeats itself through nothingness thus necessitating a recursion where the form encapuslates nothing leaving only being as existing. The repetition of being is the encapsulation of what is formless through form. An example of this would be a cookie cutter as being composed of form at its outer edges but its inner state being one of formlessness. The emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for its ability to project a form onto a further blank state, that of the dough. Dually this emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for the traceable outline of the cookie cutter itself to take shape.

7. In impressing a form onto a blank state, one can say a void, comes the projection of that said form through the nothingness where the act of imprinting of said form is the repetition of projection of said form. An example of this would be a rock imprinting sand. The sand as imprinted by the rock leaves an impression as the indent with this indent being a projection of the form of the rock through the sand thus leaving not only the rock as a form but this form of the rock as repeated through the sand.

8. One form repeats through another form as an isomorphic impression given any state of impression is that of a projection of one form repeating itself through further projections. All appearances as fundamentally empty necessitate each appearance as a thing in itself given it is distinct. This distinction is the point of change from one being into another as a repetition of that said being into a newer state. To say a phenomenon is individual or unique is to say it is a point of change thus empty in itself.

9. That which is percieved happens in accords to the angle in which it observed thus necessitating all appearances are things in themselves, as points of change from one phenomenon to another, given each appearance is a grade of some other phenomenon as pointing to that phenomenon.

10. In pointing to some other phenomenon a contrast occurs thus necessitating a distinction between one phenomenon and another where each phenomenon as distinct is that which points to another as a mode of change in itself.

11. The intrinsic emptiness of the individual phenomenon, on its own terms, necessitates individuality as distinction and this distinction being one of a singularity where one phenomenon points to another under a self referential loop. In standing apart on its own terms, through a contrast with another phenomenon, the phenomenon becomes in inherently empty in itself yet exists through a self referentiality that binds this emptiness under a looping/circular form. This self referential loop is the individuality of one set of phenomenon as pointing to itself through the emptiness of each of its individual states.
Color, shape, all our experience is due to brain activity. The is no color out there.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:41 pm Color, shape, all our experience is due to brain activity. The is no color out there.
The brain is only a machine which is not conscious of anything. There is no color in there.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: There is No Distinction Between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

bahman wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:41 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:47 am 1. The distinction between appearance and a thing in itself is negated where all appearances are things in themselves given they exist through impressionable forms. An appearance is an act of distinction where one phenomenon stands out in contrast to another, in this case being stands out in contrast to Nothingness or being stands out in contrast to further being.

2. This distinction necessitates the appearance, as that of contrast, as a thing in itself given it exists in itself under a self referential loop where being self references in contrast to Nothingness as only being exists. This self referentiality is further reflected where being stands in contrast to further being given that which is distinct acts as the beginning and end point of the phenomena it exists in contrast too given one phenomenon is observed through another.

3. This self referentiality, as a loop, sets the premise for being in itself as grounded in form. This is further reflected in that the very same phenomena, as appearance, are traceable forms given the beginning point of the phenomena are the same as the end point which is not just the phenomena itself, as both the beginning and end of a traceable loop form, but the phenomena themselves as both the beginning and end points to further phenomena. This form as a loop in itself and the looping between forms necessitates a self-referentialiy where an appearance is a thing in itself.

4. Yet this distinction of a "thing in itself" reflects that the phenomena as a point of change to another phenomenon due to its contrasting nature. Given an appearance only exists through contrast the nature of the thing in itself is one of fundamental emptiness given no one phenomenon exists on its own. To point out a distinction is to point out the change of one phenomenon to another much in the same manner where a man of distinction is one who changes from what is normal thus offering a different paradigm of behavior.

5. Dually this distinction necessitates an inherent dualism within the phenomenon, due to the nature of contrast, where one phenomenon must stand out relative to another thus necessitating not only a multitude of phenomena, with the multitude beginning with two phenomena at minimum, but being standing out against Nothingness. This contrast mandates an emergence of phenomena as that which projects from a previously formless state. This projection from a previously formless state in turn projects back into and is recieved by that which is formless thus necessitating an act of impression of forms which occurs through a loop. The inherent emptiness of one form in itself is the means in which it is impressed by another form.

6. These impressionable forms are that which are imprinted. This imprinting is grounded in the assumption of the form as the recieving of form. The reception of form is the act of taking a previously formless state and inverting it into one of form. The form repeats itself through nothingness thus necessitating a recursion where the form encapuslates nothing leaving only being as existing. The repetition of being is the encapsulation of what is formless through form. An example of this would be a cookie cutter as being composed of form at its outer edges but its inner state being one of formlessness. The emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for its ability to project a form onto a further blank state, that of the dough. Dually this emptiness of the cookie cutter allows for the traceable outline of the cookie cutter itself to take shape.

7. In impressing a form onto a blank state, one can say a void, comes the projection of that said form through the nothingness where the act of imprinting of said form is the repetition of projection of said form. An example of this would be a rock imprinting sand. The sand as imprinted by the rock leaves an impression as the indent with this indent being a projection of the form of the rock through the sand thus leaving not only the rock as a form but this form of the rock as repeated through the sand.

8. One form repeats through another form as an isomorphic impression given any state of impression is that of a projection of one form repeating itself through further projections. All appearances as fundamentally empty necessitate each appearance as a thing in itself given it is distinct. This distinction is the point of change from one being into another as a repetition of that said being into a newer state. To say a phenomenon is individual or unique is to say it is a point of change thus empty in itself.

9. That which is percieved happens in accords to the angle in which it observed thus necessitating all appearances are things in themselves, as points of change from one phenomenon to another, given each appearance is a grade of some other phenomenon as pointing to that phenomenon.

10. In pointing to some other phenomenon a contrast occurs thus necessitating a distinction between one phenomenon and another where each phenomenon as distinct is that which points to another as a mode of change in itself.

11. The intrinsic emptiness of the individual phenomenon, on its own terms, necessitates individuality as distinction and this distinction being one of a singularity where one phenomenon points to another under a self referential loop. In standing apart on its own terms, through a contrast with another phenomenon, the phenomenon becomes in inherently empty in itself yet exists through a self referentiality that binds this emptiness under a looping/circular form. This self referential loop is the individuality of one set of phenomenon as pointing to itself through the emptiness of each of its individual states.
Color, shape, all our experience is due to brain activity. The is no color out there.
Brain activity being aware of brain activity is a loop thus necessitating forms which exists beyond brain activity where these forms are the means not just of reason but exist through our reason.
Post Reply