Draft I Part XII

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Draft I Part XII

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Phenomena are the same because of their differences. This is a contradiction resulting from the equivocation of opposites. To address this point we must first understand what a ‘similarity’ is and is not. Similarities are qualities which repeat across differences in times and/or spaces. They are not fundamentally ‘many distinct things’. However this secondary definition is a contradiction as the multiplicity of ‘distinctions’ necessitates a common underlying quality of ‘distinction’ or ‘standing apart’ which repeats itself even across these relative differences. Under these terms similarities can only be viewed as ‘the repetition of qualities’ or ‘the repetition of things’ or ‘the repetition of phenomena’. A negative definition, i.e. what the phenomenon ‘is not’, cannot be applied as to apply one would be to unite the series of phenomena under what they are not which in turn is to point to the similarities of the phenomenon or, in other terms, ‘that which repeats’.

This repetition necessitates one thing existing in multiple states of time/space with each state fundamentally affecting the thing that is repeated thus resulting in a simultaneous difference within each similar thing. In turn every similar phenomenon is a different phenomenon and a contradiction results. The differences of things is equivalent to the differences in times/spaces, as mentioned before, and yet paradoxically similarities occur nonetheless as the difference in times/spaces necessitates one thing tying together different time/spaces if the times/spaces are to be multiplied from an original source. In other terms, with each difference in time/space it is necessitated that these different times/spaces are tied together under the common bond of the phenomenon that is repeated. Similarities result in differences because of multiplicity of time/space states caused from repetition, and yet these differences are connected as one because of common bonds of the repeated phenomenon which in turn results in similarities. This makes little sense due to a contradictory nature resulting from the equivocation of opposites, i.e. ‘similarities’ and ‘differences’.
An example of this is the square. The 90 degree angle repeats itself. Yet in this very act of repetition each 90 degree angle is in a different space which affects its identity as one angle is rotated in one position while next one is rotated in another. In these respects each 90 degree angle, i.e. ‘the same phenomenon’ or ‘that which is similar’, is fundamentally different because of the context through which it exists. In other terms the difference in context is the difference in angles as context affects identity. The angle is fundamentally the same and different.

This leads to another contradiction considering multiple angles cannot exist within the same space otherwise they would be fundamentally one angle. However this contradiction occurs in the respect that to say “multiple angles that are the same cannot exist within the same space” is to say there is only one angle which stands as distinct and has no similarities… and yet similarities occurs. And how do they occur? This singular distinct angle results in a multiplicity of angles considering the one angle is viewed across time and as such occurs in multiple spaces due to the elasticity of time being the spread of space. In other terms to elongate time is to elongate space, as the two are interconnected, thus resulting in one space being multiplied into many spaces as each time the phenomenon is observed a space results. One space in turns consists of many spaces under the same space of time. One space is many spaces. This is because time is space multiplied as the space which composes the phenomenon is repeated, and yet this repetition of spaces is effectively the same space even though multiple different spaces result. Now again to repeat, it is in these respects one space is many spaces, i.e. one angle is many angles, all of which is a contradiction as the “one” is the opposing “many”.

Now to further elaborate on ‘time’: due to the limits of observation each 90 degree angle exists in a different time considering one angle is observed at one time then another angle is observed at another time, all of which occurs when each is viewed individually. Taking the differences of spatial position out of the equation, each 90 degree angle is fundamentally the same, as a 90 degree angle is a 90 degree angle, however their differences in time necessitates them as fundamentally different phenomenon considering their positions in time necessitate different contexts which affect their respective identities. In these respects a contradiction ensues as one cannot “take the difference of spatial position out of the equation” as each respective time is ‘a difference in spatial position’. The angle viewed at one time, then viewed in another, is the multiplication of said angle; this allows for repetition to occur, thus the phenomenon of ‘similarity’, as the same phenomenon mirrors itself. This mirroring also results in difference as well considering repetition results in different spaces through time. In other terms we can only observe a form, such as a square, because of temporality and this temporality contains within it the phenomena of ‘similarity’ and ‘difference’. Time is similarity, time is symmetry, time is difference, time is asymmetry, and from this ‘form’ results as evidenced by the observation of the square. It may be observed, under these respects, that time is relative not only to the position of the observer but is the act of observation itself considering similarities cannot occur except because of time and to observe similarities is to observe time. The square is observed through time as its composition of similar angles is observed through time, temporality is a relationship a phenomena as the morphing of one phenomenon into another is the connection of one phenomenon with another. This morphing is the repetition of phenomenon under different states.

A contradiction results from this as well as the multiplicity of spaces through time, all of which results in differences, necessitates a common space being shared as the repetition of the phenomenon across time shows a common space of the phenomenon as ‘one’. In other terms, because a phenomenon repeats across time the space which composes the phenomenon is fundamentally the same. Under these respects differences in time, thus space, shows a unity in space considering the multiplicity of spaces through time is in effect one space as evidenced by the multiplicity of 90 degree angles, in an observed square, effectively still being a 90 degree angle. This makes little sense as ‘one’ equivocates to ‘many’, through the multiplication of space through time argued previously and the ‘many’ equivocates to ‘one’, through the unity of space through time as argued afterwards.

This leads to a question of equivocation and the resulting Law of Identity, i.e. A=A, suffers from this. Equivocation is dyadic in the respect it is the relationship of two phenomenon and this multiplicity of phenomena is a multiplicity of contexts which affects the respective identities of the things equivocating. The first “A” in A=A is in a different time and space of the second “A” in A=A. Equivocation, under these terms, results in differing contexts thus differing identities. From this it make be concluded that ‘A does not equal A’ even though the repetition of “A” still means ‘A equals A’. In these respects similarities and differences, both opposing phenomena, result in each other.

In conclusion, ‘similarities’ and ‘differences’ are opposites yet are fundamentally interconnected. This resulting connection of opposites is not only a contradiction, as opposites must oppose each other if they are to be opposites, but makes little sense as ‘similarity’ and ‘difference’ occurs under the same space through time. In these respects ‘similarity’ makes little sense when analyzed further.
Post Reply