Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 am
1. Contradictions occur through opposition.
2. Opposition results in contrast.
3. Contrast occurs through the void of one set of qualities within another set of qualities with this void allowing for individual sets of qualities to occur in relation to eachother (ie a square is not a circle but a square precisely because it has angles which are void from the circle).
4. This void is formlessness thus necessitating formlessness, through the void of one set of qualities in another through contrast, to be the grounds of definition through individuation.
5. Formlessness is necessary for a form to appear therefore contradiction, as an extension of said formlessness, is the grounds of being.
6. Contradiction is the grounds of being as contradiction underlies being.
7. Contradiction exists therefore existence is.
I'm with Dontaskme here and liked Age's response, though I am not against the other people's right to misunderstand without prejudice. I agree that you properly expressed this and have improved since I first posted with you. I have always argued for this and am not sure if you originally shared this with me before or had upgraded your own thoughts based upon something I said. Regardless, I approve.
What the problem is for others in opposition here is that they've assumed the perspective of the individual within
this world [our "Universe"] and not "Totality" as a whole. To help in expressing this, I differentiate by using the term,
Totality, to refer to "
the absolute total reality OR realities to everything in all time(s), including any presumed religious Supreme Beings, its origins if not itself, and any other possibly imagined concept whether it exists or not, including absolutely nothing at all."
and then,
[This or one's own]Universe, to refer to "
anyone's particular belief about our world in light of all possible theories about what Totality could be."
If we agree to use these definitions, then it
might help to communicate some things. With respect to these definitions, you can express that Totality is iself as founded
minimally on absolutely nothing itself. The term, 'originate' suggests time as the only foundation of existence. So before others should be confused, "absolutely nothing" would have to be what 'originates' if there is any 'original
existence that causes anything with respect to time'; The only alternative is for interpreting our own Universe as never being without time. Totality, on the other hand, CAN be
founded upon absolutely nothing or has to be interpreted as a continously infinite concept that makes everything 'true' in it somewhere.
Both absolutely nothing and absolutely everything are implied by absolutely nothing.
Let me explain, more for others given I know you
should already understand this by default. This is identical to the Boolean algebraic expression,
0 & 1 = 0....from the postulates defining the properties of one and zero and equivocates with "something or everything" (1) and "nothing" (0), or, as in propositional logic, "true" (1) or "false".
And this is also equivalent to meaning that the contradiction, 0 & 1, as "No-thing exists or Some-thing exists" is equivalent to the value of "Nothing exists".
If this is understood by all, then the point you are holding is that ....
Totality is iself founded on Absolutely Nothing, which is a necessary contradiction.
Now you should be able to understand how others' have a hard time with this given they might interpret our own Universe as no different than Totality itself. It becomes a kind of religious bias about how our own reality is presumed the ONLY reality. But the distinction for them is the 'practicality' as far as they can see.
Okay, so as not to dismiss the relevance of what you others here may misinterpreting, while what you may think is 'practical' is shared equally by all as what matters, practice is about what each of us do independent of others' opinions about its virtues.
The point about asserting 'contradiction' as a reality relates to classes. If one is talking about ones' perspective of their
Universe, what you would interpret as
untrue may be to you what lies outside of it, correct? But
Totality includes absolutely nothing and why it helps to recognize that we think in terms of all that we do not know as well. This is also
practical when trying to make sense of reality metaphysically that sets the background for our physical Universe(s). So....
IF you come across a contradiction, it only raises questions of its acceptance within a particular Universe. That is, when you find one, it usually implies that one of the premises this contradiction's conclusion came from must be "incorrect".....for the given Universe of discourse! However, should you find it 'paradoxical' (meaning a real contradiction), it implies that you agree with real conflicting premises. IF it happens to be true, however, the contradiction implies that the 'resolution' is beyond the present domain of the assumed Universe of discourse.
For practical considerations, the default is to reject the conclusion because you are not expecting to go beyond the given domain, the Universe of discourse at present. However, because it is still practical to respect the possible premises that appear to be both true that lead to the contradiction in some real cases, it means that we require '
stepping outside the box'. This does not mean that we can simply just make up any PARTICULAR assumption because this would just be another of an infinite possible religious assertions. However there is a GENERAL
safe assumption here that has to be absolutely true with respect to contradictions (or paradoxes): at the very least, what is 'false' is 'true' in the domain of Totality because is it just anything that is 'not-true' of our particular Universe
along side of what is 'true' of it. This means that Totality itself is always both always including all that is true AND false collectively, and why it is appropriate to understand it as 'contradictory'.
NOTE that the term, "
contradiction" literally derives from,
"
con-" (with), "
-tra-" (third), "
diction" (spoken of)
The 'third' here is the "
true & false" of "
true"
OR "
false", as exclusively assumed binary options. Truth values are relative to the extent of Universal class you are assuming. Totality is necessarily 'true' by its own perspective of it containing absolutely all. But you, as individuals within it interpret this the opposite BY YOUR OWN independent perspective inside your own 'universe'. As such, you too interpret all that you know about what is both (true & false) as sincere (true) real binary options. If you cannot know it, it is outside your world and thus then gets interpreted as....
What is 'false' for
my understanding of the Universe is certainly not something I can perceive as both 'true & false' when looking outside of myself [Totality] but rather exclusively 'true' or 'false'. On the other hand, what I can assert about my Universe is that it contains only what is 'true' with respect to what I know is both 'true' and 'not-true' looking inside of myself.
The point is, and something I expressed strongly before elsewhere, is that
Totality has no apriori lawgiver. So it has no reason to have 'laws', including any requirement to obey logic restrictions about consistent Universes from our perspective because it contains both consistent worlds and non-consistent ones.
So it CAN be 'contradictory' without violating rational reflection. This is what some religious have argued about their 'god' but who confuse a
valued concept of it being only 'good' (or true by virtue of naming their being as 'Go(o)d'.) They interpret "true" as being coequivalent to being "good" and so incorrectly assign this 'Totality' as equivalent to their own 'Universal' perspective, the same bias the rest of you are making in kind, even where not intentionally implying some belief in God.
Contradiction is what I also argue represents a
universal '
force' even if 'force' itself can be simply understood as distinct
ordered universes. The 'ordered' universes are those that maintain consistency and thus appear to have causation by our inside perspective. But notice that 'ordered' things imply non-consistent distinctions about states. And as such, this helps prove why Totality itself has to be both consistent and inconsistent to cause our particular Universe's static (consistent concepts) and its dynmamic ones, (inconsistencies). And just as 'contradiction' FORCES one to address means to reassert a new consistent state, contradiction still has to be understood as true of our own Universe(s).
[mic drop]!
- mic-drop-gif-8.gif (219.7 KiB) Viewed 1413 times