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

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Impenitent wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:29 pm
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
The apple, and all that it entails, is the appearance. One appearance Inverts to another given the color does not exist without the apple and the apple does not exist without the color. One appearance changes into the other, where whatever appearance is observed has a nature of being distinct with this distinction being a point of change from one phenomenon to another.
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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:24 am
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.
Color as with beauty is in the eye or brain of the beholder.
You need to reflect on the issue more philosophically rather than the superficial common vulgar sense.
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: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:46 am
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.
Of course there is a reality out there separated from our brain but it is different from what we see.
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 »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:24 am
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.
Does reality has a color? No. Why we experience color? Because of the existence of the brain which is a media between reality and our minds. Brain damage leads to color blind or blind.
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: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:03 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:46 am
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.
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.
Of course there is a reality out there separated from our brain but it is different from what we see.
In seeing anything as distinct we see a point of change from one phenomenon to another.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:28 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:25 am

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.
What is the 'Universe' dependent upon?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:52 pm 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.
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 »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:28 am
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.
What is the 'Universe' dependent upon?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:52 pm 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.
Itself as it moves through itself under parts. An example of this would be the monad. One monad exists through many with these many monads moving through themselves. An infinite number of monads exist yet each of these monads is the same thing expressed under a variety of shapes and relations. The void through which these monads move is that which reflects a form of seperation yet this seperation is a mask. The universe is continually regenerating itself.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:58 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:52 pm
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.
What is the 'Universe' dependent upon?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:52 pm 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.
Itself as it moves through itself under parts. An example of this would be the monad. One monad exists through many with these many monads moving through themselves. An infinite number of monads exist yet each of these monads is the same thing expressed under a variety of shapes and relations. The void through which these monads move is that which reflects a form of seperation yet this seperation is a mask. The universe is continually regenerating itself.
So, you claim that, "There is NO phenomenon which exists independent of anything else", and when I ask what is the OTHER 'thing', which thee Universe, Itself, is supposedly dependent upon, your answer is "Itself".

This seems, to me, like a very contradictory, and a rather very absurd, response and claim to make.

Your, so called, "explanation" does NOTHING also in clearing up the contradiction and absurdness of your claim. In fact, to me, you have actually highlighted further the absurdness and ridiculousness of your claim.

But as long as you are happy with your conclusion and explanation, then that is all that really matters, correct?

By the way, what you are 'trying to' say is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But, because you did not want to be Honest and admit your mistake you just 'tried' harder to cover up your incorrect remark, which, can be clearly seen, only makes your claim even more ludicrous.
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 »

Age wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:58 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:33 am

What is the 'Universe' dependent upon?

Itself as it moves through itself under parts. An example of this would be the monad. One monad exists through many with these many monads moving through themselves. An infinite number of monads exist yet each of these monads is the same thing expressed under a variety of shapes and relations. The void through which these monads move is that which reflects a form of seperation yet this seperation is a mask. The universe is continually regenerating itself.
So, you claim that, "There is NO phenomenon which exists independent of anything else", and when I ask what is the OTHER 'thing', which thee Universe, Itself, is supposedly dependent upon, your answer is "Itself".



This seems, to me, like a very contradictory, and a rather very absurd, response and claim to make.

Your, so called, "explanation" does NOTHING also in clearing up the contradiction and absurdness of your claim. In fact, to me, you have actually highlighted further the absurdness and ridiculousness of your claim.

But as long as you are happy with your conclusion and explanation, then that is all that really matters, correct?

By the way, what you are 'trying to' say is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But, because you did not want to be Honest and admit your mistake you just 'tried' harder to cover up your incorrect remark, which, can be clearly seen, only makes your claim even more ludicrous.
There is no phenomenon which exists independent of itself.

Simultaneously the totality of being, as in all phenomenon, exists through itself as moving through itself.

The fact that there is no phenomena which exists independent of anything else appears contradictory under the statement of the totality of being existing through itself as moving through itself, yet this statement in reality is not contradictory. Being exists as both one and many much in the same manner a series of monads exists.

The monads exist under many different relations, forming a variety of phenomenon, yet these monads at their root form (ie points) are fundamentally the same thing. The same monad is reflected under a series of different forms with these forms being an approximation of the one form through many. This approximation is where the one is observed in parts, and not in its totality, where these parts each reflect a different facet of the one. Each facet is a gradation of the whole as both a fraction and fractal of the whole where in each fraction and fractal the whole is expressed much in the same manner a microcosm reflects a macrocosm, the smaller reflected the greater form of the larger.

Under these terms the totality of being does not exist as an independent entity given its existence through grades necessitates it as dependent upon fractals/fractions of itself. Being is dependent upon other versions of itself in order to exist, with these other versions being variations. In these respects being is not independent. In a dual sense it is independent, in a seperate respect, given each of these variations contain at its roots the same form under the monad as a series of interrelated points that are grounded in the same point space which sets the prerequisite to form.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am
Age wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:58 pm
Itself as it moves through itself under parts. An example of this would be the monad. One monad exists through many with these many monads moving through themselves. An infinite number of monads exist yet each of these monads is the same thing expressed under a variety of shapes and relations. The void through which these monads move is that which reflects a form of seperation yet this seperation is a mask. The universe is continually regenerating itself.
So, you claim that, "There is NO phenomenon which exists independent of anything else", and when I ask what is the OTHER 'thing', which thee Universe, Itself, is supposedly dependent upon, your answer is "Itself".



This seems, to me, like a very contradictory, and a rather very absurd, response and claim to make.

Your, so called, "explanation" does NOTHING also in clearing up the contradiction and absurdness of your claim. In fact, to me, you have actually highlighted further the absurdness and ridiculousness of your claim.

But as long as you are happy with your conclusion and explanation, then that is all that really matters, correct?

By the way, what you are 'trying to' say is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But, because you did not want to be Honest and admit your mistake you just 'tried' harder to cover up your incorrect remark, which, can be clearly seen, only makes your claim even more ludicrous.
There is no phenomenon which exists independent of itself.
You meant to add, " to 'you' ". Otherwise you are implying that this is an ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE FACT.

See, to me, the phenomenon known as the Universe, Itself, stands ALONE, by Its own Self, and so is therefore A phenomenon which exists solely by Its Self. And, is depended upon NOTHING but Its Self.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Simultaneously the totality of being, as in all phenomenon, exists through itself as moving through itself.
So, the Universe, ALL-THERE-IS, or 'totality of being', as in ALL phenomenon, as One, exists solely independent of Itself.

What does "exists through itself, as moving through itself" actually mean, to you?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The fact that there is no phenomena which exists independent of anything else appears contradictory under the statement of the totality of being existing through itself as moving through itself, yet this statement in reality is not contradictory.
Just because you used the words, "The fact ...", at the beginning of your OWN statement, does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT, make your statement and belief a fact at all. Okay?

And, you are correct, your statement here does APPEAR contradictory. This is either because IT IS CONTRADICTORY, or IT IS NOT. Until you can logically satisfy how the totality of absolutely ALL things, which have existed, do exist, and can and will exist, can NOT exist and be independent of absolutely ANY thing else, then your statement IS CONTRADICTORY, and EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY I will add, from my perspective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Being exists as both one and many much in the same manner a series of monads exists.
I do NOT know how you are defining the word 'monad' here. But, IF there is just One Being (Monad), which is just what IS made up of many beings (monads) together as One, then that One Being obviously exists independent of ANY other beings, monads, or things.

Look, to me, there are things. And, there is the totality of ALL of these things, which together make up One thing. This One thing exists independent of any thing else. It HAS TO and can NOT be any other way.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The monads exist under many different relations, forming a variety of phenomenon, yet these monads at their root form (ie points) are fundamentally the same thing.
So what?

We are talking about ALL things, ALL monads, grouped together as One. Well I am anyway.

But, then again, I am NOT 'trying to' "justify" my ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The same monad is reflected under a series of different forms with these forms being an approximation of the one form through many. This approximation is where the one is observed in parts, and not in its totality, where these parts each reflect a different facet of the one.
To me, the Universe is the TOTALLY of ALL of Its parts. So, what I suggest is you do OBSERVE this in Its totality. That is, after all, the actual question I put forward to 'you'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Each facet is a gradation of the whole as both a fraction and fractal of the whole where in each fraction and fractal the whole is expressed much in the same manner a microcosm reflects a macrocosm, the smaller reflected the greater form of the larger.
If you can ONLY LOOK AT things this way, then you can, and will, ONLY SEE 'that', what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Under these terms the totality of being does not exist as an independent entity given its existence through grades necessitates it as dependent upon fractals/fractions of itself.
BUT, the 'TOTALITY of being' does NOT "necessitate It as dependent upon fractal/fractions of Itself, AT ALL.

This is just what you HAVE TO SEE, and just what you will LOOK AT, because of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is actually true.

Besides all of this. Thee One, TOTALITY, is NOT actually broken up, nor down, into actual separate facets, fractals, NOR fractions. Human beings have ONLY created this 'broken into separated pieces' "illusion", through perception and language, and from their ability to word and label.

OF COURSE ALL of these perceived different and separate 'things' (with and 's') do NOT exist independent of themselves. But just as OBVIOUS is that what 'It' IS, which is what the sum of ALL of these perceived 'things' actually IS, can ONLY exist independent of Its Self.

Through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, this can be SHOWN otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Being is dependent upon other versions of itself in order to exist, with these other versions being variations.
Well OBVIOUSLY the One and ONLY Being, which is just the sum TOTAL of ALL, so called, "beings", is dependent upon Its Self continually changing, in way, shape, AND form. In order to exist this HAS TO OCCUR. And, of course, "other versions" are just variations of thee One Being, Self.

Again, through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, ANOTHER way can be SHOWN.

BUT, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have said, and have pointed out. That is; Thee One and ONLY Being is NOT dependent upon ANY "other" 'thing'.

If one thing's existence is dependent upon the "parts" of that thing changing, then, dare I say it, 'that is one thing', but this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether that one thing is dependent upon or independent upon some OTHER thing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am In these respects being is not independent.
This is what 'you' have concluded, but you had concluded this BEFORE you wrote what you did here, correct?

This is NOT what I observe and SEE. As expressed and explained above.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am In a dual sense it is independent, in a seperate respect, given each of these variations contain at its roots the same form under the monad as a series of interrelated points that are grounded in the same point space which sets the prerequisite to form.
You seem to be 'trying' ANY thing now to back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

You are also complicating and making hard what IS essentially just PURELY very SIMPLE and extremely EASY to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.
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 »

Age wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am
Age wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:57 am

So, you claim that, "There is NO phenomenon which exists independent of anything else", and when I ask what is the OTHER 'thing', which thee Universe, Itself, is supposedly dependent upon, your answer is "Itself".



This seems, to me, like a very contradictory, and a rather very absurd, response and claim to make.

Your, so called, "explanation" does NOTHING also in clearing up the contradiction and absurdness of your claim. In fact, to me, you have actually highlighted further the absurdness and ridiculousness of your claim.

But as long as you are happy with your conclusion and explanation, then that is all that really matters, correct?

By the way, what you are 'trying to' say is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But, because you did not want to be Honest and admit your mistake you just 'tried' harder to cover up your incorrect remark, which, can be clearly seen, only makes your claim even more ludicrous.
There is no phenomenon which exists independent of itself.
You meant to add, " to 'you' ". Otherwise you are implying that this is an ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE FACT.

See, to me, the phenomenon known as the Universe, Itself, stands ALONE, by Its own Self, and so is therefore A phenomenon which exists solely by Its Self. And, is depended upon NOTHING but Its Self.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Simultaneously the totality of being, as in all phenomenon, exists through itself as moving through itself.
So, the Universe, ALL-THERE-IS, or 'totality of being', as in ALL phenomenon, as One, exists solely independent of Itself.

What does "exists through itself, as moving through itself" actually mean, to you?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The fact that there is no phenomena which exists independent of anything else appears contradictory under the statement of the totality of being existing through itself as moving through itself, yet this statement in reality is not contradictory.
Just because you used the words, "The fact ...", at the beginning of your OWN statement, does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT, make your statement and belief a fact at all. Okay?

And, you are correct, your statement here does APPEAR contradictory. This is either because IT IS CONTRADICTORY, or IT IS NOT. Until you can logically satisfy how the totality of absolutely ALL things, which have existed, do exist, and can and will exist, can NOT exist and be independent of absolutely ANY thing else, then your statement IS CONTRADICTORY, and EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY I will add, from my perspective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Being exists as both one and many much in the same manner a series of monads exists.
I do NOT know how you are defining the word 'monad' here. But, IF there is just One Being (Monad), which is just what IS made up of many beings (monads) together as One, then that One Being obviously exists independent of ANY other beings, monads, or things.

Look, to me, there are things. And, there is the totality of ALL of these things, which together make up One thing. This One thing exists independent of any thing else. It HAS TO and can NOT be any other way.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The monads exist under many different relations, forming a variety of phenomenon, yet these monads at their root form (ie points) are fundamentally the same thing.
So what?

We are talking about ALL things, ALL monads, grouped together as One. Well I am anyway.

But, then again, I am NOT 'trying to' "justify" my ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The same monad is reflected under a series of different forms with these forms being an approximation of the one form through many. This approximation is where the one is observed in parts, and not in its totality, where these parts each reflect a different facet of the one.
To me, the Universe is the TOTALLY of ALL of Its parts. So, what I suggest is you do OBSERVE this in Its totality. That is, after all, the actual question I put forward to 'you'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Each facet is a gradation of the whole as both a fraction and fractal of the whole where in each fraction and fractal the whole is expressed much in the same manner a microcosm reflects a macrocosm, the smaller reflected the greater form of the larger.
If you can ONLY LOOK AT things this way, then you can, and will, ONLY SEE 'that', what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Under these terms the totality of being does not exist as an independent entity given its existence through grades necessitates it as dependent upon fractals/fractions of itself.
BUT, the 'TOTALITY of being' does NOT "necessitate It as dependent upon fractal/fractions of Itself, AT ALL.

This is just what you HAVE TO SEE, and just what you will LOOK AT, because of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is actually true.

Besides all of this. Thee One, TOTALITY, is NOT actually broken up, nor down, into actual separate facets, fractals, NOR fractions. Human beings have ONLY created this 'broken into separated pieces' "illusion", through perception and language, and from their ability to word and label.

OF COURSE ALL of these perceived different and separate 'things' (with and 's') do NOT exist independent of themselves. But just as OBVIOUS is that what 'It' IS, which is what the sum of ALL of these perceived 'things' actually IS, can ONLY exist independent of Its Self.

Through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, this can be SHOWN otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Being is dependent upon other versions of itself in order to exist, with these other versions being variations.
Well OBVIOUSLY the One and ONLY Being, which is just the sum TOTAL of ALL, so called, "beings", is dependent upon Its Self continually changing, in way, shape, AND form. In order to exist this HAS TO OCCUR. And, of course, "other versions" are just variations of thee One Being, Self.

Again, through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, ANOTHER way can be SHOWN.

BUT, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have said, and have pointed out. That is; Thee One and ONLY Being is NOT dependent upon ANY "other" 'thing'.

If one thing's existence is dependent upon the "parts" of that thing changing, then, dare I say it, 'that is one thing', but this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether that one thing is dependent upon or independent upon some OTHER thing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am In these respects being is not independent.
This is what 'you' have concluded, but you had concluded this BEFORE you wrote what you did here, correct?

This is NOT what I observe and SEE. As expressed and explained above.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am In a dual sense it is independent, in a seperate respect, given each of these variations contain at its roots the same form under the monad as a series of interrelated points that are grounded in the same point space which sets the prerequisite to form.
You seem to be 'trying' ANY thing now to back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

You are also complicating and making hard what IS essentially just PURELY very SIMPLE and extremely EASY to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

Beliefs are the acceptance of phenomena "as is", I am simply accepting the nature of the one and the many as already existing.
The totality of being, as both composed of one and many parts, exists as dependent upon a variation thus a continual change. Under these terms its being is not independent of any of its parts thus does not exist on it's own terms given this change necessitates multiple variations of itself.

The totality of being is dependent upon variation thus further necessitating the one as expressed through the many where the one is dependent upon a continuous change and in itself is empty. Dually this continuous change reflects the same thing expressed under a variety of means where the one is expressed self referentially thus a self referential loop occurs.

This self referential loop is fundamentally empty in itself except through further loops which are fundamentally empty in themselves as well. The one self references itself through empty loops which contain further empty loops. Each loop is empty in itself yet contains further loops which are empty in themselves. One loop is reflected through the many and this self referentiality necessitates the manifestation of repeated loops as loop in itself and as a loop is empty in itself. The loops containing loops manifests no loop as independent upon another loop yet this process of looping as independent given the same loop manifests itself under continual variation. There is both one loop and many simultaneously.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:57 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am

There is no phenomenon which exists independent of itself.
You meant to add, " to 'you' ". Otherwise you are implying that this is an ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE FACT.

See, to me, the phenomenon known as the Universe, Itself, stands ALONE, by Its own Self, and so is therefore A phenomenon which exists solely by Its Self. And, is depended upon NOTHING but Its Self.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Simultaneously the totality of being, as in all phenomenon, exists through itself as moving through itself.
So, the Universe, ALL-THERE-IS, or 'totality of being', as in ALL phenomenon, as One, exists solely independent of Itself.

What does "exists through itself, as moving through itself" actually mean, to you?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The fact that there is no phenomena which exists independent of anything else appears contradictory under the statement of the totality of being existing through itself as moving through itself, yet this statement in reality is not contradictory.
Just because you used the words, "The fact ...", at the beginning of your OWN statement, does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT, make your statement and belief a fact at all. Okay?

And, you are correct, your statement here does APPEAR contradictory. This is either because IT IS CONTRADICTORY, or IT IS NOT. Until you can logically satisfy how the totality of absolutely ALL things, which have existed, do exist, and can and will exist, can NOT exist and be independent of absolutely ANY thing else, then your statement IS CONTRADICTORY, and EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY I will add, from my perspective.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Being exists as both one and many much in the same manner a series of monads exists.
I do NOT know how you are defining the word 'monad' here. But, IF there is just One Being (Monad), which is just what IS made up of many beings (monads) together as One, then that One Being obviously exists independent of ANY other beings, monads, or things.

Look, to me, there are things. And, there is the totality of ALL of these things, which together make up One thing. This One thing exists independent of any thing else. It HAS TO and can NOT be any other way.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The monads exist under many different relations, forming a variety of phenomenon, yet these monads at their root form (ie points) are fundamentally the same thing.
So what?

We are talking about ALL things, ALL monads, grouped together as One. Well I am anyway.

But, then again, I am NOT 'trying to' "justify" my ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am The same monad is reflected under a series of different forms with these forms being an approximation of the one form through many. This approximation is where the one is observed in parts, and not in its totality, where these parts each reflect a different facet of the one.
To me, the Universe is the TOTALLY of ALL of Its parts. So, what I suggest is you do OBSERVE this in Its totality. That is, after all, the actual question I put forward to 'you'.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Each facet is a gradation of the whole as both a fraction and fractal of the whole where in each fraction and fractal the whole is expressed much in the same manner a microcosm reflects a macrocosm, the smaller reflected the greater form of the larger.
If you can ONLY LOOK AT things this way, then you can, and will, ONLY SEE 'that', what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, anyway.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Under these terms the totality of being does not exist as an independent entity given its existence through grades necessitates it as dependent upon fractals/fractions of itself.
BUT, the 'TOTALITY of being' does NOT "necessitate It as dependent upon fractal/fractions of Itself, AT ALL.

This is just what you HAVE TO SEE, and just what you will LOOK AT, because of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is actually true.

Besides all of this. Thee One, TOTALITY, is NOT actually broken up, nor down, into actual separate facets, fractals, NOR fractions. Human beings have ONLY created this 'broken into separated pieces' "illusion", through perception and language, and from their ability to word and label.

OF COURSE ALL of these perceived different and separate 'things' (with and 's') do NOT exist independent of themselves. But just as OBVIOUS is that what 'It' IS, which is what the sum of ALL of these perceived 'things' actually IS, can ONLY exist independent of Its Self.

Through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, this can be SHOWN otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am Being is dependent upon other versions of itself in order to exist, with these other versions being variations.
Well OBVIOUSLY the One and ONLY Being, which is just the sum TOTAL of ALL, so called, "beings", is dependent upon Its Self continually changing, in way, shape, AND form. In order to exist this HAS TO OCCUR. And, of course, "other versions" are just variations of thee One Being, Self.

Again, through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, ANOTHER way can be SHOWN.

BUT, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have said, and have pointed out. That is; Thee One and ONLY Being is NOT dependent upon ANY "other" 'thing'.

If one thing's existence is dependent upon the "parts" of that thing changing, then, dare I say it, 'that is one thing', but this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether that one thing is dependent upon or independent upon some OTHER thing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am In these respects being is not independent.
This is what 'you' have concluded, but you had concluded this BEFORE you wrote what you did here, correct?

This is NOT what I observe and SEE. As expressed and explained above.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:33 am In a dual sense it is independent, in a seperate respect, given each of these variations contain at its roots the same form under the monad as a series of interrelated points that are grounded in the same point space which sets the prerequisite to form.
You seem to be 'trying' ANY thing now to back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

You are also complicating and making hard what IS essentially just PURELY very SIMPLE and extremely EASY to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.
Beliefs are the acceptance of phenomena "as is", I am simply accepting the nature of the one and the many as already existing.
The one and the many 'what' EXACTLY, as already existing?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:57 pm The totality of being, as both composed of one and many parts, exists as dependent upon a variation thus a continual change. Under these terms its being is not independent of any of its parts thus does not exist on it's own terms given this change necessitates multiple variations of itself.

The totality of being is dependent upon variation thus further necessitating the one as expressed through the many where the one is dependent upon a continuous change and in itself is empty. Dually this continuous change reflects the same thing expressed under a variety of means where the one is expressed self referentially thus a self referential loop occurs.

This self referential loop is fundamentally empty in itself except through further loops which are fundamentally empty in themselves as well. The one self references itself through empty loops which contain further empty loops. Each loop is empty in itself yet contains further loops which are empty in themselves. One loop is reflected through the many and this self referentiality necessitates the manifestation of repeated loops as loop in itself and as a loop is empty in itself. The loops containing loops manifests no loop as independent upon another loop yet this process of looping as independent given the same loop manifests itself under continual variation. There is both one loop and many simultaneously.
There is also One Universe, which, OBVIOUSLY, IS and, OBVIOUSLY, HAS TO exist absolutely independent of ANY thing else.

Everything could NOT be ANY other way, OBVIOUSLY.

If the 'Universe' is defined as Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then thee Universe HAS TO BE absolutely independent of ANY thing else, BECAUSE there is NOTHING ELSE, OBVIOUSLY.
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 »

Age wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:57 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:56 am

You meant to add, " to 'you' ". Otherwise you are implying that this is an ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE FACT.

See, to me, the phenomenon known as the Universe, Itself, stands ALONE, by Its own Self, and so is therefore A phenomenon which exists solely by Its Self. And, is depended upon NOTHING but Its Self.



So, the Universe, ALL-THERE-IS, or 'totality of being', as in ALL phenomenon, as One, exists solely independent of Itself.

What does "exists through itself, as moving through itself" actually mean, to you?



Just because you used the words, "The fact ...", at the beginning of your OWN statement, does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT, make your statement and belief a fact at all. Okay?

And, you are correct, your statement here does APPEAR contradictory. This is either because IT IS CONTRADICTORY, or IT IS NOT. Until you can logically satisfy how the totality of absolutely ALL things, which have existed, do exist, and can and will exist, can NOT exist and be independent of absolutely ANY thing else, then your statement IS CONTRADICTORY, and EXTREMELY CONTRADICTORY I will add, from my perspective.



I do NOT know how you are defining the word 'monad' here. But, IF there is just One Being (Monad), which is just what IS made up of many beings (monads) together as One, then that One Being obviously exists independent of ANY other beings, monads, or things.

Look, to me, there are things. And, there is the totality of ALL of these things, which together make up One thing. This One thing exists independent of any thing else. It HAS TO and can NOT be any other way.



So what?

We are talking about ALL things, ALL monads, grouped together as One. Well I am anyway.

But, then again, I am NOT 'trying to' "justify" my ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.



To me, the Universe is the TOTALLY of ALL of Its parts. So, what I suggest is you do OBSERVE this in Its totality. That is, after all, the actual question I put forward to 'you'.



If you can ONLY LOOK AT things this way, then you can, and will, ONLY SEE 'that', what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, anyway.



BUT, the 'TOTALITY of being' does NOT "necessitate It as dependent upon fractal/fractions of Itself, AT ALL.

This is just what you HAVE TO SEE, and just what you will LOOK AT, because of what you ALREADY BELIEVE is actually true.

Besides all of this. Thee One, TOTALITY, is NOT actually broken up, nor down, into actual separate facets, fractals, NOR fractions. Human beings have ONLY created this 'broken into separated pieces' "illusion", through perception and language, and from their ability to word and label.

OF COURSE ALL of these perceived different and separate 'things' (with and 's') do NOT exist independent of themselves. But just as OBVIOUS is that what 'It' IS, which is what the sum of ALL of these perceived 'things' actually IS, can ONLY exist independent of Its Self.

Through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, this can be SHOWN otherwise.



Well OBVIOUSLY the One and ONLY Being, which is just the sum TOTAL of ALL, so called, "beings", is dependent upon Its Self continually changing, in way, shape, AND form. In order to exist this HAS TO OCCUR. And, of course, "other versions" are just variations of thee One Being, Self.

Again, through 'logical reasoning' this could NOT be in ANY other way. Unless, of course, ANOTHER way can be SHOWN.

BUT, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have said, and have pointed out. That is; Thee One and ONLY Being is NOT dependent upon ANY "other" 'thing'.

If one thing's existence is dependent upon the "parts" of that thing changing, then, dare I say it, 'that is one thing', but this has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether that one thing is dependent upon or independent upon some OTHER thing.



This is what 'you' have concluded, but you had concluded this BEFORE you wrote what you did here, correct?

This is NOT what I observe and SEE. As expressed and explained above.



You seem to be 'trying' ANY thing now to back up and support your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

You are also complicating and making hard what IS essentially just PURELY very SIMPLE and extremely EASY to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.
Beliefs are the acceptance of phenomena "as is", I am simply accepting the nature of the one and the many as already existing.
The one and the many 'what' EXACTLY, as already existing?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:57 pm The totality of being, as both composed of one and many parts, exists as dependent upon a variation thus a continual change. Under these terms its being is not independent of any of its parts thus does not exist on it's own terms given this change necessitates multiple variations of itself.

The totality of being is dependent upon variation thus further necessitating the one as expressed through the many where the one is dependent upon a continuous change and in itself is empty. Dually this continuous change reflects the same thing expressed under a variety of means where the one is expressed self referentially thus a self referential loop occurs.

This self referential loop is fundamentally empty in itself except through further loops which are fundamentally empty in themselves as well. The one self references itself through empty loops which contain further empty loops. Each loop is empty in itself yet contains further loops which are empty in themselves. One loop is reflected through the many and this self referentiality necessitates the manifestation of repeated loops as loop in itself and as a loop is empty in itself. The loops containing loops manifests no loop as independent upon another loop yet this process of looping as independent given the same loop manifests itself under continual variation. There is both one loop and many simultaneously.
There is also One Universe, which, OBVIOUSLY, IS and, OBVIOUSLY, HAS TO exist absolutely independent of ANY thing else.

Everything could NOT be ANY other way, OBVIOUSLY.

If the 'Universe' is defined as Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then thee Universe HAS TO BE absolutely independent of ANY thing else, BECAUSE there is NOTHING ELSE, OBVIOUSLY.
The one is expressed through multiplicity. For example, one electron is expressed through many where the one is a set of many parts (ie one electron exists through many different electrons). Another example is the number one expressed recursively through many numbers. "All that there is" includes all acts of measurement as phenomena in themselves where "the many", as a series of phenomenon, is a phenomenon in itself as a series of phenomenon which exists. In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is.

The universe does not exist as independent of itself given it moves through itself under of multiplicity of parts where each part is distinct given it progresses to another part as a means of change.

The universe, all that there is, is both one and many.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:50 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:57 pm

Beliefs are the acceptance of phenomena "as is", I am simply accepting the nature of the one and the many as already existing.
The one and the many 'what' EXACTLY, as already existing?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:57 pm The totality of being, as both composed of one and many parts, exists as dependent upon a variation thus a continual change. Under these terms its being is not independent of any of its parts thus does not exist on it's own terms given this change necessitates multiple variations of itself.

The totality of being is dependent upon variation thus further necessitating the one as expressed through the many where the one is dependent upon a continuous change and in itself is empty. Dually this continuous change reflects the same thing expressed under a variety of means where the one is expressed self referentially thus a self referential loop occurs.

This self referential loop is fundamentally empty in itself except through further loops which are fundamentally empty in themselves as well. The one self references itself through empty loops which contain further empty loops. Each loop is empty in itself yet contains further loops which are empty in themselves. One loop is reflected through the many and this self referentiality necessitates the manifestation of repeated loops as loop in itself and as a loop is empty in itself. The loops containing loops manifests no loop as independent upon another loop yet this process of looping as independent given the same loop manifests itself under continual variation. There is both one loop and many simultaneously.
There is also One Universe, which, OBVIOUSLY, IS and, OBVIOUSLY, HAS TO exist absolutely independent of ANY thing else.

Everything could NOT be ANY other way, OBVIOUSLY.

If the 'Universe' is defined as Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then thee Universe HAS TO BE absolutely independent of ANY thing else, BECAUSE there is NOTHING ELSE, OBVIOUSLY.
The one is expressed through multiplicity. For example, one electron is expressed through many where the one is a set of many parts (ie one electron exists through many different electrons).
That may be your view, but obviously thee One Universe does NOT exist through many different Universes. For the very SIMPLE FACT that there can ever only be just One Universe.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm Another example is the number one expressed recursively through many numbers. "All that there is" includes all acts of measurement as phenomena in themselves where "the many", as a series of phenomenon, is a phenomenon in itself as a series of phenomenon which exists. In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is.
This may be true, but this does NOT counter NOR refute what I have been saying.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm The universe does not exist as independent of itself given it moves through itself under of multiplicity of parts where each part is distinct given it progresses to another part as a means of change.
What does "moves through itself" actually mean, to you?

I agree the Universe does not exist as independent of "Its Self". To suggest such a thing would just be an absurdity.

But, to me, the Universe, Itself, is obviously independent of ANY thing else.

Also, you claiming that " 'each part' is distinct " could be seen as somewhat countering, somewhat contradicting, and/or somewhat refuting your own claim that there is NO 'things-in-themselves.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm The universe, all that there is, is both one and many.
I have not come across ANY one who says otherwise.

Thee Truth, however, is the apparent and seemingly separation or distinction between the "many", which you say is "each part which is distinct", is not actually there, other than in language and/or labels and names ONLY.

By the way, what you wrote here in this quote actually contradicts your claims, and backs up and supports what I have been saying.
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 »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm
Age wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:50 am

The one and the many 'what' EXACTLY, as already existing?



There is also One Universe, which, OBVIOUSLY, IS and, OBVIOUSLY, HAS TO exist absolutely independent of ANY thing else.

Everything could NOT be ANY other way, OBVIOUSLY.

If the 'Universe' is defined as Everything or ALL-THERE-IS, then thee Universe HAS TO BE absolutely independent of ANY thing else, BECAUSE there is NOTHING ELSE, OBVIOUSLY.
The one is expressed through multiplicity. For example, one electron is expressed through many where the one is a set of many parts (ie one electron exists through many different electrons).
That may be your view, but obviously thee One Universe does NOT exist through many different Universes. For the very SIMPLE FACT that there can ever only be just One Universe.

Each universe is a fractal/fraction of the original universe where each fractal is distinct as a means of change to another fractal/fraction.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm Another example is the number one expressed recursively through many numbers. "All that there is" includes all acts of measurement as phenomena in themselves where "the many", as a series of phenomenon, is a phenomenon in itself as a series of phenomenon which exists.
This may be true, but this does NOT counter NOR refute what I have been saying.

In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is.


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm The universe does not exist as independent of itself given it moves through itself under of multiplicity of parts where each part is distinct given it progresses to another part as a means of change.
What does "moves through itself" actually mean, to you?

The progression of one part through another part suggests each part as empty in itself. This emptiness of each part necessitates each part as progressing to another resulting in a self sustained loop. This loop, as with most loops, is empty given the parts which compose it cannot exist on there own terms. The universe, or all being, is a series of loops within loops with all loops being an approximation of one loop. An example of a series of rings within rings shows one ring as existing through many thus both one and many rings.

I agree the Universe does not exist as independent of "Its Self". To suggest such a thing would just be an absurdity.

But, to me, the Universe, Itself, is obviously independent of ANY thing else.

The universe is not independent of the parts which compose it just in the same manner as a series of rings within rings is not independent of the ring form and function.

Also, you claiming that " 'each part' is distinct " could be seen as somewhat countering, somewhat contradicting, and/or somewhat refuting your own claim that there is NO 'things-in-themselves. Each part as distinct is a means of change from one phenomena to another through a contrast. For example a bird cannot be observed on it's own terms except in contrast to a tree. The bird as a distinct phenomena is a means of change to another phenomena, in this case a tree.


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:57 pm The universe, all that there is, is both one and many.
I have not come across ANY one who says otherwise.

Thee Truth, however, is the apparent and seemingly separation or distinction between the "many", which you say is "each part which is distinct", is not actually there, other than in language and/or labels and names ONLY.

Language, labels and names are part of the universe as phenomena which exist as part of the universe.

By the way, what you wrote here in this quote actually contradicts your claims, and backs up and supports what I have been saying.

False, the universe exists as both one and many, both dependent upon itself through fractals and independent of itself as a means of change from one fractal to another.

The universe is dependent upon it fractals through which it exists.

It is independent of these fractals given each fractal is a variation of the original form.
Post Reply