There is only the totality and this totality is beyond measurement given the totality is without comparison as to compare the totality to something beyond it would result in the totality not being the totality. Comparison is necessary for form to occur. Again, in other words: there is only one totality. This totality is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality. This totality is limitless as only it exists and limits require comparison. This limitlessness is infinity. The totality is one (as there is no comparison for form) yet as only one is without comparison, necessary for form, thus is zero.
A paradox with the above statement occurs, however, given to speak of a monism is to a result in a dualism in the respect that there is the “one” and the observation of “multiplicity” is an illusion; there is truth and then there is illusion which exists just as much as “the one” exists. This paradox is as follows:
1. Monism is paradoxical as it results in the dualism of reality and illusion.
2. Dualism is paradoxical as it results in the singular relation of opposites as one.
3. Both monism and dualism exist and this is a paradox; it is further paradoxical in saying that the opposite, ie neither existing, occurs.
This nature of the totality leaves it as founded upon and originating paradox. Paradox is beyond the senses. For
The totality is thus a void beyond the senses, which is absolute given no change can occur to no-thingness. That which is sensical is not only relative but is a void of this void, a negation of negation. The void of void is not only the self-referentiality of no-thingness, which is paradoxical to even speak of, but a contradiction in terms given to even speak about void is a contradiction, in one respect as we are observing “something”, while in another respect the void of void is a contradiction of void (thus being is a contradiction).
This leads us to the question of “void?”. Nothingness as a concept is the act of differentiation of phenomenon where one phenomenon, relative to another, lacks some quality of the former. Pure Nothingness does not exist as pure void voids itself into being if it is a total void; under these terms there is void (nothingness) and the void of void (being) which is still a void. Thus to speak of pure nothingness is to speak of a contradiction which in turn says nothing at all; this can be elucidated under the statement: ""Pure nothingness is an absence of concept" and this statement is a concept". This sentence is a contradiction thus equating nothingness to a contradiction, ie absence of reason. However as an absence of reason this absence exists in contrast to the positive, ie existence/non-absence, action of reason thus we are relegated to another contradiction between being and non-being. This contradiction, as senseless, resolves us back to the nature of void within things.
This totality is beyond conception as the totality is formless and we perceive through forms. This formlessness is because there is nothing beyond the totality that allows for contrast necessary for form. This leads to several paradoxes and contradictions relative to sensory knowledge given the totality, as self-originating, is the building block of all things in the respects it is the origin:
1. One senses that one senses.
2. Sense becomes self referential and without contrast therefore without form.
3. Formlessness is unable to be sensed thus one cannot sense that they sense,
4. However we only know of sense through sensing it.
1. Everything is senseless.
2. This is sensed.
1. Everything is sensible.
2. Sensible means anything considering it is everything, thus is non-sense.
1. There are empirical senses.
2. These empirical senses are sensed by the mind through the abstraction of memory.
3. The memory becomes empirical as it exists through the actions it directs.
4. Sense is both abstract and empirical even though abstract/empirical depend upon contrast as opposites.
1. Reality does not exist beyond the senses.
2. We sense the senses but no-thing exists beyond the senses.
3. In sensing the senses we know the senses exist.
4. In sensing the senses "sense" we sense everything as reality does not exist beyond the senses.
5. The sensing of sense leaves sense as self-referential and without comparison (as only sensibility exists) thus sense is no-thing.
6. In sensing sense we sense no-thing.
7. Considering reality does not exist beyond the senses and the sense of "everything as the senses" we are left with reality as no-thing.
8. Reality does not exist beyond the senses but the senses are nothing; reality does not exist beyond nothing.
In regards to rationalizing the totality through equations, the totality cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'the totality' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'the totality' and 'something else besides the totality'. This 'something else besides the totality' would result in the totality not being the totality.
The totality can have no rational equation because the equation would require the totality to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case the totality is not the totality). Dually, everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything. This leads us to questions of equivocation if the totality, ie everything, cannot have a formula.
There is no total equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.
In one respect there is no total equality of things because of the perpetual multiplicity of distinct things, thus equality must be reduced to common underlying qualities. As such "Cat=dog because of 'animal'" applies. So while there is no total equality within the multiplicity of things, because of the aforementioned “distinctiveness”, a total equality results in two respects minimum:
1. All being shares the same quality known as distinction, thus total equality occurs.
2. All being share the same quality known as “being”, thus total equality occurs.
Paradoxically "Animal=Animal" results in a dyad of "animal" which further results in "animal" being different from "animal" because of positions in time and space. "Animal=Animal" only applies because it has in common "dog" or "cat" or "walrus". Self-referential equality, ie A=A, exists because of common denominators, not because A=A simply because A=A necessitates one A in one time and space and the other A in another. However, in another respect, A=A is self-referential thus leaving an absence of comparison necessary for form to occur. This is the nature of the totality reflecting itself within its parts.
This nature of self-referentiality within the totality reflects not only the paradoxical, or contradictory, nature of the totality but reflects further within all that extends from the totality as the parts are self-referential as the totality is self-referential.
As stands the laws of logic negate when self-referencing:
1. There is either the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction when applying the law of excluded middle, this is considering both equality and non-equality are opposites. If the law of identity stands, and the law of non-contradiction does not, then A=A and A=-A. If the law of non-contradiction stands, and the law of identity does not, then A equals an infinity of things thus is indefinite and obscure: A=B,C,D,E.... (under this the law of non-contradiction is also valueless as A and -A equal an infinity of things).
2. The law of identity necessitates the law of excluded middle being the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction being the law of non-contradiction. At first glance this makes sense but the contradiction occurs in the respect that now there are multiple laws of excluded middles and multiple laws of non-contradiction as equality is dyadic, A and A as A=A, at minimum while being polymorphous when taken to the extreme, A and A and A and... as A=A=A=.... This multiplicity of the single law regresses, or rather progresses, infinitely thus is indefinite as ((A=A)=(A=A))... or (A=A=A...). Dually each of these laws, grounded in the variable of A or -A, can equivocate to an infinite number of things as A or -A are variables which encompass an infinite number of meanings; this infinity of meanings is indefiniteness with this infinity of meanings resulting from a self-reference.
3. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that the law of identity does not equal the law of excluded middle considering the "equals" function is the complete opposite of the "or" function; "or" is difference thus is an absence of equality. This again makes sense at first glance however the contradiction ensues further considering "equality" stands in contrast to "or" thus making "or" equivocate to "not-equals", therefore repetitively stating "equality" does not equal "non-equality" and the law of non-contradiction becomes itself as "not equaling" "not equals" or rather (=)=/=(=/=). The law of non-contradiction as the law of non-contradiction equivocates as the law of identity yet both are opposites as the law of identity is "equality" and the law of non-contradiction is "non-equality"; in stating (=/=)=(=/=) we are necessitating "equality" is inseparable from "non-equality" yet both must be distinct if identity of non-contradiction is to hold.
This reflects further with the fallacies:
1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is a fallacy.
2. The fallacy of authority is an authoritative statement.
3. The fallacy of slippery slope is defined as one definition resulting into another, one limit into another, one boundary into another, etc.
Dually one fallacy negates another:
1. The fallacy of circularity is an authoritative statement.
2. The fallacy of authority is a fallacy because authoritative statements are fallacies (this is circular).
3. The fallacy of circularity results in authority which results in further fallacies thus is slippery slope.
In conclusion the totality is beyond measurement and the qualities of measurement we apply, which are a part of the totality, lead to contradiction as well when observed within the realm of the relative. Reality is beyond judgement and the foundations of measurement, which we not only apply but are phenomena extending from the total, self-negate through contradiction.
Draft I
Re: Draft I
There is only the totality and this totality is beyond measurement given the totality is without comparison as to compare the totality to something beyond it would result in the totality not being the totality. Comparison is necessary for form to occur. Again, in other words: there is only one totality. This totality is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality. This totality is limitless as only it exists and limits require comparison. This limitlessness is infinity. The totality is one (as there is no comparison for form) yet as only one is without comparison, necessary for form, thus is zero.
A paradox, or rather most likely a contradiction, with the above statement occurs, however, given to speak of a monism is to a result in a dualism in the respect that there is the “one” and the observation of “multiplicity” is an illusion; there is truth and then there is illusion which exists just as much as “the one” exists. This paradox is as follows:
1. Monism is paradoxical as it results in the dualism of reality and illusion.
2. Dualism is paradoxical as it results in the singular relation of opposites as one.
3. Both monism and dualism exist and this is a paradox; it is further paradoxical in saying that the opposite, ie neither existing, occurs.
This nature of the totality leaves it as founded upon and originating paradox. Paradox is beyond the senses. For argument sakes paradox and contradiction can be viewed as loose synonyms where the difference lies in the paradox being a unified contradiction and the contradiction itself just being a separation of phenomena or rather just a contrast of phenomena.
To speak of the totality is to move beyond the senses as it is without compare; the totality is thus a void beyond the senses given a void cannot be observed otherwise it would just be a thing and not a void. This void is absolute given no change can occur to no-thingness. That which is sensical is not only relative, because of the comparison of contexts required for it to be distinct (ie standout), but is a void of this void, a negation of negation. Being is a void of void and this nature of being as a void of void is necessary if the void is absolute and universal, the void must be void of void if it is to be a void. But this is a contradiction, ie the void of void, just in the same manner speaking of void is a contradiction (to speak of it is to relegate it to a thing); from this it can be derived that being itself is a contradiction just in the same manner void is a contradiction.
This leads us to the question of “void?” and the question mark at the end is necessary given who, what, when, where, how, why is applied when looking at void from different angles. Nothingness as a concept is the act of differentiation of phenomenon where one phenomenon, relative to another, lacks some quality of the former. Pure Nothingness does not exist as pure void voids itself into being if it is a total void; under these terms there is void (nothingness) and the void of void (being) which is still a void. Thus to speak of pure nothingness is to speak of a contradiction which in turn says nothing at all; this can be elucidated under the statement: ""Pure nothingness is an absence of concept" and this statement is a concept". This sentence is a contradiction thus equating nothingness to a contradiction, ie absence of reason. However as an absence of reason this absence exists in contrast to the positive, ie existence/non-absence, action of reason thus we are relegated to another contradiction between being and non-being. This contradiction, as senseless, resolves us back to the nature of void within things.
This totality is beyond conception as the totality is formless and we perceive through forms. This formlessness is because there is nothing beyond the totality that allows for contrast necessary for form. This leads to several paradoxes and contradictions relative to sensory knowledge given the totality, as self-originating given only it exists, is the building block of all things, including both the senses and reason (intellect), in the respects it is the origin:
1. One senses that one senses.
2. Sense becomes self referential and without contrast therefore without form.
3. Formlessness is unable to be sensed thus one cannot sense that they sense,
4. However we only know of sense through sensing it.
1. Everything is senseless.
2. This is sensed.
1. Everything is sensible.
2. Sensible means anything considering it is everything, thus is non-sense.
1. There are empirical senses.
2. These empirical senses are sensed by the mind through the abstraction of memory.
3. The memory becomes empirical as it exists through the actions it directs.
4. Sense is both abstract and empirical even though abstract/empirical depend upon contrast as opposites.
1. Reality does not exist beyond the senses.
2. We sense the senses but no-thing exists beyond the senses.
3. In sensing the senses we know the senses exist.
4. In sensing the senses "sense" we sense everything as reality does not exist beyond the senses.
5. The sensing of sense leaves sense as self-referential and without comparison (as only sensibility exists) thus sense is no-thing.
6. In sensing sense we sense no-thing.
7. Considering reality does not exist beyond the senses and the sense of "everything as the senses" we are left with reality as no-thing.
8. Reality does not exist beyond the senses but the senses are nothing; reality does not exist beyond nothing.
In regards to rationalizing the totality through equations, the totality cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'the totality' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'the totality' and 'something else besides the totality'. This 'something else besides the totality' would result in the totality not being the totality.
The totality can have no rational equation because the equation would require the totality to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case the totality is not the totality). Dually, everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything. This leads us to questions of equivocation if the totality, ie everything, cannot have a formula.
There is no total equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.
In one respect there is no total equality of things because of the perpetual multiplicity of distinct things, thus equality must be reduced to common underlying qualities. As such "Cat=dog because of 'animal'" applies. So while there is no total equality within the multiplicity of things, because of the aforementioned “distinctiveness”, a total equality results in two respects minimum:
1. All being shares the same quality known as distinction, thus total equality occurs.
2. All being share the same quality known as “being”, thus total equality occurs.
Paradoxically "Animal=Animal" results in a dyad of "animal" which further results in "animal" being different from "animal" because of positions in time and space. "Animal=Animal" only applies because it has in common "dog" or "cat" or "walrus". Self-referential equality, ie A=A, exists because of common denominators, not because A=A simply because A=A necessitates one A in one time and space and the other A in another as each a is a relative part as evidenced by the dyadic nature of the equation. However, in another respect, A=A is self-referential thus leaving an absence of comparison necessary for form to occur; A=A is meaningless. This is the nature of the totality reflecting itself within its parts as all things are void on their own terms when no relation is evident.
This nature of self-referentiality of the totality reflects not only the paradoxical, or contradictory, nature of the totality but reflects further within all that extends from the totality as the parts are self-referential as the totality is self-referential. The macro reflected within the micro is necessary through the inherent connection of the parts through the whole; one part connects to another part and this connection necessitates shared qualities.
As stands the 3 laws of logic negate when self-referencing:
1. There is either the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction when applying the law of excluded middle, this is considering both equality and non-equality are opposites. If the law of identity stands, and the law of non-contradiction does not, then A=A and A=-A. If the law of non-contradiction stands, and the law of identity does not, then A equals an infinity of things thus is indefinite and obscure: A=B,C,D,E.... (under this the law of non-contradiction is also valueless as A and -A equal an infinity of things).
2. The law of identity necessitates the law of excluded middle being the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction being the law of non-contradiction. At first glance this makes sense but the contradiction occurs in the respect that now there are multiple laws of excluded middles and multiple laws of non-contradiction as equality is dyadic, A and A as A=A, at minimum while being polymorphous when taken to the extreme, A and A and A and... as A=A=A=.... This multiplicity of the single law regresses, or rather progresses, infinitely thus is indefinite as ((A=A)=(A=A))... or (A=A=A...). Dually each of these laws, grounded in the variable of A or -A, can equivocate to an infinite number of things as A or -A are variables which encompass an infinite number of meanings; this infinity of meanings is indefiniteness with this infinity of meanings resulting from a self-reference.
3. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that the law of identity does not equal the law of excluded middle considering the "equals" function is the complete opposite of the "or" function; "or" is difference thus is an absence of equality. This again makes sense at first glance however the contradiction ensues further considering "equality" stands in contrast to "or" thus making "or" equivocate to "not-equals", therefore repetitively stating "equality" does not equal "non-equality" and the law of non-contradiction becomes itself as "not equaling" "not equals" or rather (=)=/=(=/=). The law of non-contradiction as the law of non-contradiction equivocates as the law of identity yet both are opposites as the law of identity is "equality" and the law of non-contradiction is "non-equality"; in stating (=/=)=(=/=) we are necessitating "equality" is inseparable from "non-equality" yet both must be distinct if identity of non-contradiction is to hold.
This reflects further with the fallacies:
1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is a fallacy.
2. The fallacy of authority is an authoritative statement.
3. The fallacy of slippery slope is defined as one definition resulting into another, one limit into another, one boundary into another, etc.
Dually one fallacy negates another:
1. The fallacy of circularity is an authoritative statement.
2. The fallacy of authority is a fallacy because authoritative statements are fallacies (this is circular).
3. The fallacy of circularity results in authority which results in further fallacies thus is slippery slope.
In conclusion the totality is beyond measurement and the qualities of measurement we apply, which are a part of the totality, lead to contradiction as well when observed within the realm of the relative. Reality is beyond judgement and the foundations of measurement, which we not only apply but are phenomena extending from the total, self-negate through contradiction.
A paradox, or rather most likely a contradiction, with the above statement occurs, however, given to speak of a monism is to a result in a dualism in the respect that there is the “one” and the observation of “multiplicity” is an illusion; there is truth and then there is illusion which exists just as much as “the one” exists. This paradox is as follows:
1. Monism is paradoxical as it results in the dualism of reality and illusion.
2. Dualism is paradoxical as it results in the singular relation of opposites as one.
3. Both monism and dualism exist and this is a paradox; it is further paradoxical in saying that the opposite, ie neither existing, occurs.
This nature of the totality leaves it as founded upon and originating paradox. Paradox is beyond the senses. For argument sakes paradox and contradiction can be viewed as loose synonyms where the difference lies in the paradox being a unified contradiction and the contradiction itself just being a separation of phenomena or rather just a contrast of phenomena.
To speak of the totality is to move beyond the senses as it is without compare; the totality is thus a void beyond the senses given a void cannot be observed otherwise it would just be a thing and not a void. This void is absolute given no change can occur to no-thingness. That which is sensical is not only relative, because of the comparison of contexts required for it to be distinct (ie standout), but is a void of this void, a negation of negation. Being is a void of void and this nature of being as a void of void is necessary if the void is absolute and universal, the void must be void of void if it is to be a void. But this is a contradiction, ie the void of void, just in the same manner speaking of void is a contradiction (to speak of it is to relegate it to a thing); from this it can be derived that being itself is a contradiction just in the same manner void is a contradiction.
This leads us to the question of “void?” and the question mark at the end is necessary given who, what, when, where, how, why is applied when looking at void from different angles. Nothingness as a concept is the act of differentiation of phenomenon where one phenomenon, relative to another, lacks some quality of the former. Pure Nothingness does not exist as pure void voids itself into being if it is a total void; under these terms there is void (nothingness) and the void of void (being) which is still a void. Thus to speak of pure nothingness is to speak of a contradiction which in turn says nothing at all; this can be elucidated under the statement: ""Pure nothingness is an absence of concept" and this statement is a concept". This sentence is a contradiction thus equating nothingness to a contradiction, ie absence of reason. However as an absence of reason this absence exists in contrast to the positive, ie existence/non-absence, action of reason thus we are relegated to another contradiction between being and non-being. This contradiction, as senseless, resolves us back to the nature of void within things.
This totality is beyond conception as the totality is formless and we perceive through forms. This formlessness is because there is nothing beyond the totality that allows for contrast necessary for form. This leads to several paradoxes and contradictions relative to sensory knowledge given the totality, as self-originating given only it exists, is the building block of all things, including both the senses and reason (intellect), in the respects it is the origin:
1. One senses that one senses.
2. Sense becomes self referential and without contrast therefore without form.
3. Formlessness is unable to be sensed thus one cannot sense that they sense,
4. However we only know of sense through sensing it.
1. Everything is senseless.
2. This is sensed.
1. Everything is sensible.
2. Sensible means anything considering it is everything, thus is non-sense.
1. There are empirical senses.
2. These empirical senses are sensed by the mind through the abstraction of memory.
3. The memory becomes empirical as it exists through the actions it directs.
4. Sense is both abstract and empirical even though abstract/empirical depend upon contrast as opposites.
1. Reality does not exist beyond the senses.
2. We sense the senses but no-thing exists beyond the senses.
3. In sensing the senses we know the senses exist.
4. In sensing the senses "sense" we sense everything as reality does not exist beyond the senses.
5. The sensing of sense leaves sense as self-referential and without comparison (as only sensibility exists) thus sense is no-thing.
6. In sensing sense we sense no-thing.
7. Considering reality does not exist beyond the senses and the sense of "everything as the senses" we are left with reality as no-thing.
8. Reality does not exist beyond the senses but the senses are nothing; reality does not exist beyond nothing.
In regards to rationalizing the totality through equations, the totality cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'the totality' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'the totality' and 'something else besides the totality'. This 'something else besides the totality' would result in the totality not being the totality.
The totality can have no rational equation because the equation would require the totality to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case the totality is not the totality). Dually, everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything. This leads us to questions of equivocation if the totality, ie everything, cannot have a formula.
There is no total equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.
In one respect there is no total equality of things because of the perpetual multiplicity of distinct things, thus equality must be reduced to common underlying qualities. As such "Cat=dog because of 'animal'" applies. So while there is no total equality within the multiplicity of things, because of the aforementioned “distinctiveness”, a total equality results in two respects minimum:
1. All being shares the same quality known as distinction, thus total equality occurs.
2. All being share the same quality known as “being”, thus total equality occurs.
Paradoxically "Animal=Animal" results in a dyad of "animal" which further results in "animal" being different from "animal" because of positions in time and space. "Animal=Animal" only applies because it has in common "dog" or "cat" or "walrus". Self-referential equality, ie A=A, exists because of common denominators, not because A=A simply because A=A necessitates one A in one time and space and the other A in another as each a is a relative part as evidenced by the dyadic nature of the equation. However, in another respect, A=A is self-referential thus leaving an absence of comparison necessary for form to occur; A=A is meaningless. This is the nature of the totality reflecting itself within its parts as all things are void on their own terms when no relation is evident.
This nature of self-referentiality of the totality reflects not only the paradoxical, or contradictory, nature of the totality but reflects further within all that extends from the totality as the parts are self-referential as the totality is self-referential. The macro reflected within the micro is necessary through the inherent connection of the parts through the whole; one part connects to another part and this connection necessitates shared qualities.
As stands the 3 laws of logic negate when self-referencing:
1. There is either the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction when applying the law of excluded middle, this is considering both equality and non-equality are opposites. If the law of identity stands, and the law of non-contradiction does not, then A=A and A=-A. If the law of non-contradiction stands, and the law of identity does not, then A equals an infinity of things thus is indefinite and obscure: A=B,C,D,E.... (under this the law of non-contradiction is also valueless as A and -A equal an infinity of things).
2. The law of identity necessitates the law of excluded middle being the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction being the law of non-contradiction. At first glance this makes sense but the contradiction occurs in the respect that now there are multiple laws of excluded middles and multiple laws of non-contradiction as equality is dyadic, A and A as A=A, at minimum while being polymorphous when taken to the extreme, A and A and A and... as A=A=A=.... This multiplicity of the single law regresses, or rather progresses, infinitely thus is indefinite as ((A=A)=(A=A))... or (A=A=A...). Dually each of these laws, grounded in the variable of A or -A, can equivocate to an infinite number of things as A or -A are variables which encompass an infinite number of meanings; this infinity of meanings is indefiniteness with this infinity of meanings resulting from a self-reference.
3. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that the law of identity does not equal the law of excluded middle considering the "equals" function is the complete opposite of the "or" function; "or" is difference thus is an absence of equality. This again makes sense at first glance however the contradiction ensues further considering "equality" stands in contrast to "or" thus making "or" equivocate to "not-equals", therefore repetitively stating "equality" does not equal "non-equality" and the law of non-contradiction becomes itself as "not equaling" "not equals" or rather (=)=/=(=/=). The law of non-contradiction as the law of non-contradiction equivocates as the law of identity yet both are opposites as the law of identity is "equality" and the law of non-contradiction is "non-equality"; in stating (=/=)=(=/=) we are necessitating "equality" is inseparable from "non-equality" yet both must be distinct if identity of non-contradiction is to hold.
This reflects further with the fallacies:
1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is a fallacy.
2. The fallacy of authority is an authoritative statement.
3. The fallacy of slippery slope is defined as one definition resulting into another, one limit into another, one boundary into another, etc.
Dually one fallacy negates another:
1. The fallacy of circularity is an authoritative statement.
2. The fallacy of authority is a fallacy because authoritative statements are fallacies (this is circular).
3. The fallacy of circularity results in authority which results in further fallacies thus is slippery slope.
In conclusion the totality is beyond measurement and the qualities of measurement we apply, which are a part of the totality, lead to contradiction as well when observed within the realm of the relative. Reality is beyond judgement and the foundations of measurement, which we not only apply but are phenomena extending from the total, self-negate through contradiction.
Re: Draft I
I hope someday you resolved the caos in your mind.
Keep it simple!!
Bye!
Keep it simple!!
Bye!
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Draft I
Further reading on the Totality for those who find themselves aksing 'wtf is it?'
https://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Summary_o ... rt_One.htm
https://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Summary_o ... rt_One.htm
Re: Draft I
There is only the totality and this totality is beyond measurement given the totality is without comparison as to compare the totality to something beyond it would result in the totality not being the totality. Comparison is necessary for form to occur. Again, in other words: there is only one totality and the totality, for sake of argument, can be viewed as synonymous with 'everything' or 'the universe'. This totality is without compare otherwise it would not be the totality. This totality is limitless as only it exists and limits require comparison. This limitlessness is infinity. The totality is one (as there is no comparison for form) yet as only one is without comparison, necessary for form, thus is zero.
A paradox, or rather most likely a contradiction, with the above statement occurs, however, given to speak of a monism is to a result in a dualism in the respect that there is the “one” and the observation of “multiplicity” is an illusion; there is truth and then there is illusion which exists just as much as “the one” exists. This paradox is as follows:
1. Monism is paradoxical as it results in the dualism of reality and illusion.
2. Dualism is paradoxical as it results in the singular relation of opposites as one.
3. Both monism and dualism exist and this is a paradox; it is further paradoxical in saying that the opposite, ie neither existing, occurs.
This nature of the totality leaves it as founded upon and originating paradox. Paradox is beyond the senses. For argument sakes paradox and contradiction can be viewed as loose synonyms where the difference lies in the paradox being a unified contradiction and the contradiction itself just being a separation of phenomena or rather just a contrast of phenomena.
To speak of the totality is to move beyond the senses as it is without compare; the totality is thus a void beyond the senses given a void cannot be observed otherwise it would just be a thing and not a void. This void is absolute given no change can occur to no-thingness. That which is sensical is not only relative, because of the comparison of contexts required for it to be distinct (ie standout), but is a void of this void, a negation of negation. Being is a void of void and this nature of being as a void of void is necessary if the void is absolute and universal, the void must be void of void if it is to be a void. But this is a contradiction, ie the void of void, just in the same manner speaking of void is a contradiction (to speak of it is to relegate it to a thing); from this it can be derived that being itself is a contradiction just in the same manner void is a contradiction.
This leads us to the question of “void?” and the question mark at the end is necessary given who, what, when, where, how, why is applied when looking at void from different angles. Nothingness as a concept is the act of differentiation of phenomenon where one phenomenon, relative to another, lacks some quality of the former. Pure Nothingness does not exist as pure void voids itself into being if it is a total void; under these terms there is void (nothingness) and the void of void (being) which is still a void. Thus to speak of pure nothingness is to speak of a contradiction which in turn says nothing at all; this can be elucidated under the statement: ""Pure nothingness is an absence of concept" and this statement is a concept". This sentence is a contradiction thus equating nothingness to a contradiction, ie absence of reason. However as an absence of reason this absence exists in contrast to the positive, ie existence/non-absence, action of reason thus we are relegated to another contradiction between being and non-being. This contradiction, as senseless, resolves us back to the nature of void within things.
This totality is beyond conception as the totality is formless and we perceive through forms. This formlessness is because there is nothing beyond the totality that allows for contrast necessary for form. This leads to several paradoxes and contradictions relative to sensory knowledge given the totality, as self-originating given only it exists, is the building block of all things, including both the senses and reason (intellect), in the respects it is the origin:
1. One senses that one senses.
2. Sense becomes self referential and without contrast therefore without form.
3. Formlessness is unable to be sensed thus one cannot sense that they sense,
4. However we only know of sense through sensing it.
1. Everything is senseless.
2. This is sensed.
1. Everything is sensible.
2. Sensible means anything considering it is everything, thus is non-sense.
1. There are empirical senses.
2. These empirical senses are sensed by the mind through the abstraction of memory.
3. The memory becomes empirical as it exists through the actions it directs.
4. Sense is both abstract and empirical even though abstract/empirical depend upon contrast as opposites.
1. Reality does not exist beyond the senses.
2. We sense the senses but no-thing exists beyond the senses.
3. In sensing the senses we know the senses exist.
4. In sensing the senses "sense" we sense everything as reality does not exist beyond the senses.
5. The sensing of sense leaves sense as self-referential and without comparison (as only sensibility exists) thus sense is no-thing.
6. In sensing sense we sense no-thing.
7. Considering reality does not exist beyond the senses and the sense of "everything as the senses" we are left with reality as no-thing.
8. Reality does not exist beyond the senses but the senses are nothing; reality does not exist beyond nothing.
In regards to rationalizing the totality through equations, the totality cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'the totality' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'the totality' and 'something else besides the totality'. This 'something else besides the totality' would result in the totality not being the totality.
The totality can have no rational equation because the equation would require the totality to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case the totality is not the totality). Dually, everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything. This leads us to questions of equivocation if the totality, ie everything, cannot have a formula.
There is no total equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.
In one respect there is no total equality of things because of the perpetual multiplicity of distinct things, thus equality must be reduced to common underlying qualities. As such "Cat=dog because of 'animal'" applies. So while there is no total equality within the multiplicity of things, because of the aforementioned “distinctiveness”, a total equality results in two respects minimum:
1. All being shares the same quality known as distinction, thus total equality occurs.
2. All being share the same quality known as “being”, thus total equality occurs.
Paradoxically "Animal=Animal" results in a dyad of "animal" which further results in "animal" being different from "animal" because of positions in time and space. "Animal=Animal" only applies because it has in common "dog" or "cat" or "walrus". Self-referential equality, ie A=A, exists because of common denominators, not because A=A simply because A=A necessitates one A in one time and space and the other A in another as each a is a relative part as evidenced by the dyadic nature of the equation. However, in another respect, A=A is self-referential thus leaving an absence of comparison necessary for form to occur; A=A is meaningless. This is the nature of the totality reflecting itself within its parts as all things are void on their own terms when no relation is evident.
This nature of self-referentiality of the totality reflects not only the paradoxical, or contradictory, nature of the totality but reflects further within all that extends from the totality as the parts are self-referential as the totality is self-referential. The macro reflected within the micro is necessary through the inherent connection of the parts through the whole; one part connects to another part and this connection necessitates shared qualities.
As stands the 3 laws of logic negate when self-referencing:
1. There is either the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction when applying the law of excluded middle, this is considering both equality and non-equality are opposites. If the law of identity stands, and the law of non-contradiction does not, then A=A and A=-A. If the law of non-contradiction stands, and the law of identity does not, then A equals an infinity of things thus is indefinite and obscure: A=B,C,D,E.... (under this the law of non-contradiction is also valueless as A and -A equal an infinity of things).
2. The law of identity necessitates the law of excluded middle being the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction being the law of non-contradiction. At first glance this makes sense but the contradiction occurs in the respect that now there are multiple laws of excluded middles and multiple laws of non-contradiction as equality is dyadic, A and A as A=A, at minimum while being polymorphous when taken to the extreme, A and A and A and... as A=A=A=.... This multiplicity of the single law regresses, or rather progresses, infinitely thus is indefinite as ((A=A)=(A=A))... or (A=A=A...). Dually each of these laws, grounded in the variable of A or -A, can equivocate to an infinite number of things as A or -A are variables which encompass an infinite number of meanings; this infinity of meanings is indefiniteness with this infinity of meanings resulting from a self-reference.
3. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that the law of identity does not equal the law of excluded middle considering the "equals" function is the complete opposite of the "or" function; "or" is difference thus is an absence of equality. This again makes sense at first glance however the contradiction ensues further considering "equality" stands in contrast to "or" thus making "or" equivocate to "not-equals", therefore repetitively stating "equality" does not equal "non-equality" and the law of non-contradiction becomes itself as "not equaling" "not equals" or rather (=)=/=(=/=). The law of non-contradiction as the law of non-contradiction equivocates as the law of identity yet both are opposites as the law of identity is "equality" and the law of non-contradiction is "non-equality"; in stating (=/=)=(=/=) we are necessitating "equality" is inseparable from "non-equality" yet both must be distinct if identity of non-contradiction is to hold.
This reflects further with the fallacies:
1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is a fallacy.
2. The fallacy of authority is an authoritative statement.
3. The fallacy of slippery slope is defined as one definition resulting into another, one limit into another, one boundary into another, etc.
Dually one fallacy negates another:
1. The fallacy of circularity is an authoritative statement.
2. The fallacy of authority is a fallacy because authoritative statements are fallacies (this is circular).
3. The fallacy of circularity results in authority which results in further fallacies thus is slippery slope.
In conclusion the totality is beyond measurement and the qualities of measurement we apply, which are a part of the totality, lead to contradiction as well when observed within the realm of the relative. Reality is beyond judgement and the foundations of measurement, which we not only apply but are phenomena extending from the total, self-negate through contradiction. The totality is self originating considering there is no comparison, thus is the origin, and this origin is paradoxical; the totality is a paradox. As a paradox, the totality is beyond the senses and considering this we can only point to the totality through self-refuting statements. Paradox is the origin of all things thus reality is beyond the senses as it is 'non-sensical', ie cannot be sensed.
A paradox, or rather most likely a contradiction, with the above statement occurs, however, given to speak of a monism is to a result in a dualism in the respect that there is the “one” and the observation of “multiplicity” is an illusion; there is truth and then there is illusion which exists just as much as “the one” exists. This paradox is as follows:
1. Monism is paradoxical as it results in the dualism of reality and illusion.
2. Dualism is paradoxical as it results in the singular relation of opposites as one.
3. Both monism and dualism exist and this is a paradox; it is further paradoxical in saying that the opposite, ie neither existing, occurs.
This nature of the totality leaves it as founded upon and originating paradox. Paradox is beyond the senses. For argument sakes paradox and contradiction can be viewed as loose synonyms where the difference lies in the paradox being a unified contradiction and the contradiction itself just being a separation of phenomena or rather just a contrast of phenomena.
To speak of the totality is to move beyond the senses as it is without compare; the totality is thus a void beyond the senses given a void cannot be observed otherwise it would just be a thing and not a void. This void is absolute given no change can occur to no-thingness. That which is sensical is not only relative, because of the comparison of contexts required for it to be distinct (ie standout), but is a void of this void, a negation of negation. Being is a void of void and this nature of being as a void of void is necessary if the void is absolute and universal, the void must be void of void if it is to be a void. But this is a contradiction, ie the void of void, just in the same manner speaking of void is a contradiction (to speak of it is to relegate it to a thing); from this it can be derived that being itself is a contradiction just in the same manner void is a contradiction.
This leads us to the question of “void?” and the question mark at the end is necessary given who, what, when, where, how, why is applied when looking at void from different angles. Nothingness as a concept is the act of differentiation of phenomenon where one phenomenon, relative to another, lacks some quality of the former. Pure Nothingness does not exist as pure void voids itself into being if it is a total void; under these terms there is void (nothingness) and the void of void (being) which is still a void. Thus to speak of pure nothingness is to speak of a contradiction which in turn says nothing at all; this can be elucidated under the statement: ""Pure nothingness is an absence of concept" and this statement is a concept". This sentence is a contradiction thus equating nothingness to a contradiction, ie absence of reason. However as an absence of reason this absence exists in contrast to the positive, ie existence/non-absence, action of reason thus we are relegated to another contradiction between being and non-being. This contradiction, as senseless, resolves us back to the nature of void within things.
This totality is beyond conception as the totality is formless and we perceive through forms. This formlessness is because there is nothing beyond the totality that allows for contrast necessary for form. This leads to several paradoxes and contradictions relative to sensory knowledge given the totality, as self-originating given only it exists, is the building block of all things, including both the senses and reason (intellect), in the respects it is the origin:
1. One senses that one senses.
2. Sense becomes self referential and without contrast therefore without form.
3. Formlessness is unable to be sensed thus one cannot sense that they sense,
4. However we only know of sense through sensing it.
1. Everything is senseless.
2. This is sensed.
1. Everything is sensible.
2. Sensible means anything considering it is everything, thus is non-sense.
1. There are empirical senses.
2. These empirical senses are sensed by the mind through the abstraction of memory.
3. The memory becomes empirical as it exists through the actions it directs.
4. Sense is both abstract and empirical even though abstract/empirical depend upon contrast as opposites.
1. Reality does not exist beyond the senses.
2. We sense the senses but no-thing exists beyond the senses.
3. In sensing the senses we know the senses exist.
4. In sensing the senses "sense" we sense everything as reality does not exist beyond the senses.
5. The sensing of sense leaves sense as self-referential and without comparison (as only sensibility exists) thus sense is no-thing.
6. In sensing sense we sense no-thing.
7. Considering reality does not exist beyond the senses and the sense of "everything as the senses" we are left with reality as no-thing.
8. Reality does not exist beyond the senses but the senses are nothing; reality does not exist beyond nothing.
In regards to rationalizing the totality through equations, the totality cannot equate to anything as the equation points to a dyad, the thing and the thing that the thing is equal too. Because equality is dyadic 'the totality' cannot equate to anything at all because said equation would require 'the totality' and 'something else besides the totality'. This 'something else besides the totality' would result in the totality not being the totality.
The totality can have no rational equation because the equation would require the totality to be a part thus necessitating it as a part having parts beyond it (in which case the totality is not the totality). Dually, everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything. This leads us to questions of equivocation if the totality, ie everything, cannot have a formula.
There is no total equality as x=y necessitates the difference of x and y as x=x and y=y. Thus equality is the connection of two or more distinct things through an underlying quality both x and y share. This results in a paradox as there is no total equality but this absence of total equality is something all things share thus total equality exists.
In one respect there is no total equality of things because of the perpetual multiplicity of distinct things, thus equality must be reduced to common underlying qualities. As such "Cat=dog because of 'animal'" applies. So while there is no total equality within the multiplicity of things, because of the aforementioned “distinctiveness”, a total equality results in two respects minimum:
1. All being shares the same quality known as distinction, thus total equality occurs.
2. All being share the same quality known as “being”, thus total equality occurs.
Paradoxically "Animal=Animal" results in a dyad of "animal" which further results in "animal" being different from "animal" because of positions in time and space. "Animal=Animal" only applies because it has in common "dog" or "cat" or "walrus". Self-referential equality, ie A=A, exists because of common denominators, not because A=A simply because A=A necessitates one A in one time and space and the other A in another as each a is a relative part as evidenced by the dyadic nature of the equation. However, in another respect, A=A is self-referential thus leaving an absence of comparison necessary for form to occur; A=A is meaningless. This is the nature of the totality reflecting itself within its parts as all things are void on their own terms when no relation is evident.
This nature of self-referentiality of the totality reflects not only the paradoxical, or contradictory, nature of the totality but reflects further within all that extends from the totality as the parts are self-referential as the totality is self-referential. The macro reflected within the micro is necessary through the inherent connection of the parts through the whole; one part connects to another part and this connection necessitates shared qualities.
As stands the 3 laws of logic negate when self-referencing:
1. There is either the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction when applying the law of excluded middle, this is considering both equality and non-equality are opposites. If the law of identity stands, and the law of non-contradiction does not, then A=A and A=-A. If the law of non-contradiction stands, and the law of identity does not, then A equals an infinity of things thus is indefinite and obscure: A=B,C,D,E.... (under this the law of non-contradiction is also valueless as A and -A equal an infinity of things).
2. The law of identity necessitates the law of excluded middle being the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction being the law of non-contradiction. At first glance this makes sense but the contradiction occurs in the respect that now there are multiple laws of excluded middles and multiple laws of non-contradiction as equality is dyadic, A and A as A=A, at minimum while being polymorphous when taken to the extreme, A and A and A and... as A=A=A=.... This multiplicity of the single law regresses, or rather progresses, infinitely thus is indefinite as ((A=A)=(A=A))... or (A=A=A...). Dually each of these laws, grounded in the variable of A or -A, can equivocate to an infinite number of things as A or -A are variables which encompass an infinite number of meanings; this infinity of meanings is indefiniteness with this infinity of meanings resulting from a self-reference.
3. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that the law of identity does not equal the law of excluded middle considering the "equals" function is the complete opposite of the "or" function; "or" is difference thus is an absence of equality. This again makes sense at first glance however the contradiction ensues further considering "equality" stands in contrast to "or" thus making "or" equivocate to "not-equals", therefore repetitively stating "equality" does not equal "non-equality" and the law of non-contradiction becomes itself as "not equaling" "not equals" or rather (=)=/=(=/=). The law of non-contradiction as the law of non-contradiction equivocates as the law of identity yet both are opposites as the law of identity is "equality" and the law of non-contradiction is "non-equality"; in stating (=/=)=(=/=) we are necessitating "equality" is inseparable from "non-equality" yet both must be distinct if identity of non-contradiction is to hold.
This reflects further with the fallacies:
1. The fallacy of circularity is a fallacy because it is a fallacy.
2. The fallacy of authority is an authoritative statement.
3. The fallacy of slippery slope is defined as one definition resulting into another, one limit into another, one boundary into another, etc.
Dually one fallacy negates another:
1. The fallacy of circularity is an authoritative statement.
2. The fallacy of authority is a fallacy because authoritative statements are fallacies (this is circular).
3. The fallacy of circularity results in authority which results in further fallacies thus is slippery slope.
In conclusion the totality is beyond measurement and the qualities of measurement we apply, which are a part of the totality, lead to contradiction as well when observed within the realm of the relative. Reality is beyond judgement and the foundations of measurement, which we not only apply but are phenomena extending from the total, self-negate through contradiction. The totality is self originating considering there is no comparison, thus is the origin, and this origin is paradoxical; the totality is a paradox. As a paradox, the totality is beyond the senses and considering this we can only point to the totality through self-refuting statements. Paradox is the origin of all things thus reality is beyond the senses as it is 'non-sensical', ie cannot be sensed.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Draft I
Thanks! "Wtf is it?" really is the question, lol.promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:33 pm Further reading on the Totality for those who find themselves aksing 'wtf is it?'
https://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Summary_o ... rt_One.htm