Draft I Part XVIII

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 XVIII

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

When questioning the nature of the origins of existence Aristotle’s unmoved mover, an ancient interpretation, and the more modern Big Bang, two separate interpretations of how reality began, can coexist as the unmoved mover can be viewed as the cause of the Big Bang. In these respects the nature of the unmoved mover can be focused upon as an interpretation of said origins and as such can be viewed as a modern interpretation of how and why ‘things are’. This however does not necessitate there are no contradictions within this revisited theory.

The unmoved mover is unmoved and yet movement is necessary for being, as movement, allows for distinction. This distinction is necessary for the unmoved to be observed considering observing no distinction is to observe nothingness and to observe nothingness is to not observe at all. In these respects only the mover can be observed and nothing can be stated about the ‘unmoved’ as it is effectively nothingness. To put it another way: in order to be observed, the unmoved must be moving as movement allows for distinction and distinction results in the ability to observe something. This distinction through movement occurs in the respect that an object is replicated across time and space thus resulting in an identity through these differences in time and space with these differences being acts of contrast as one time and space, i.e. the identity of the phenomenon which moves, stands apart from another.

Another contradiction occurs within the theory of the unmoved mover considering for a thing to be moved it must first exist thus necessitating that which is moved as already existing otherwise it cannot be moved. This makes no sense, considering movement is necessary for distinction, as the moved phenomenon must already be moving but moved even further by the unmoved mover. Under these circumstances the unmoved mover coexists with that which is moved with that being moved being self-originating as self-moving prior to the unmoved mover moving it. Under these terms that which is moved and the unmoved mover exist at the same time and one cannot be placed prior to the other. This is a contradiction as both the moved and the mover are each distinct as necessitated by their coexistence resulting in a dualism.

However if that which is moved does not exist until it is moved the mover is moving nothingness or potentiality/unactuality as that which is moved does not exist until it is moved. Nothingness or potentiality/unactuality cannot be affected otherwise it would be somethingness. In these respects, if nothingness can be acted upon (and it cannot be), the ‘unmoved’ of the unmoved mover is the same as the moved and the unmoved mover is acting upon itself as a self-negation. This theory results in contradiction. This leads back to the earlier stated contradiction: if the thing is to be moved it must first exist if it is to be acted upon and in these respects must already be existing if the mover is to move anything. This prior existence of the moved results in it existing at the same time as the unmoved mover thus the moved is self-originating.

However if a thing is to self-moving it effectively must contain within it a void through which to move thus resulting in self-origination as the manifestation of an emptiness inherent within the phenomenon that allows it to self-originate. This emptiness of the phenomenon is the same as the ‘unmoved’ nature of the unmoved mover with the phenomenon itself being the same as the ‘mover’ of the unmoved mover. A phenomenon is empty in itself as it must occur through another phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon divided and multiplied into new space and time positions, if it is to be continuous and exist because of said continuity. However, this ‘other’ phenomenon is paradoxically still the same thing as the unmoved mover itself as both are empty being. To repeat what was said prior again; it is in these respects the self-moving moved phenomenon is the same as the unmoved mover, considering the unmoved is nothingness and the mover is being (both of which are foundations for further phenomenon as intrinsically empty, i.e. unmoved, actualizations, i.e. mover), thus resulting in a multiplicity of unmoved movers all of which are distinctly different due to the confines of separate times and spaces. The unmoved mover is moving another unmoved mover and this is a contradiction as the unmoved mover is effectively moved through its multiplicity of states as it acts upon itself considering only itself exists. In other terms this ‘only-ness’ of the unmoved mover occurs in the respect that:

1. That which is moved does not exist as it must first be moving if it is to exist, thus self-originating, therefore leaving only the unmoved mover existing.

2. The self-origination of the moved, if it is to exist, makes it fundamentally the same as the unmoved mover as the unmoved mover is self-originating thus leaving only the unmoved mover still existing (even though it would be in multiple states).

However this ‘only-ness’ does not negate the fact the unmoved mover exists in multiple states. This is considering the unmoved mover, i.e. nothingness and being, is an observation of an intrinsically empty phenomenon which must result in further empty phenomenon if the empty phenomenon is to continue. This is considering all phenomenon are empty in themselves as on their own they have no comparison which is necessary for them to exist through distinction. In these respects the unmoved mover is self-divided through time and space, as it must compare to itself, and this is a contradiction.

Another contradiction in this interpretation of the unmoved mover occurs as the unmoved mover moves itself through that which is moved considering that which is moved exists as an extension of the unmoved mover due to its influence on that which is moved. In other terms, moving something necessitates that which is moved being connected to that which moves as that which moves exists through that which is moved. In acting upon the moved, the unmoved mover, impresses itself upon the moved thus the unmoved mover exists in a new form. In these respects the unmoved mover, in moving a phenomenon, becomes moving and the movement is self-originating as only it exists even though this existence is in a new form.

The self-origination of the being is the self-contradiction of being given the self-origination of being occurs through a multiplicity of being which results from distinctions through movement as the manifestation of separate times and spaces. Without distinction being is nothing and yet with distinctions being is contradictory as it stands apart from itself. However distinctions are relative thus being is illusionary by nature considering that which exists in one context is false in another. In these respects the mover is an illusion and the no-thingness of the unmoved is unchanging thus the unmoved mover can be reduced to a dichotomy between nothingness, i.e. unchanging-ness, and illusion, i.e. change as being. Another angle to this argument may be observed, one that contradicts the previous assertions mentioned earlier, as it may be implied that the relativity of being, i.e. the mover, makes the mover an illusion and there is only the unmoved, i.e. nothingness.

From another perspective another contradiction within the unmoved mover results. The ‘unmoved’ aspect of the unmoved mover is nothingness, as it is indefinite due to an absence of movement, and the movement is the cancelization of that nothingness. In these respects only the mover exists and the unmoved mover is self-negating as the mover negates the unmoved by acting upon it. However potentiality, i.e. nothingness, cannot be acted upon as it is nothing. Considering this the acting upon nothingness is the movement through nothingness as the actual is divided and multiplied much in the same manner an atom in a void is divided and multiplied through its different positions in time and space. Movement is the multiplication and division and of phenomenon which results in time and space. Again in other terms, the unmoved is potentiality and the mover is actuality thus the unmoved mover acts upon itself as the actual negates the potential by moving through it thus multiplying the actual through the potential (nothingness) dividing the actual into new states. In these respects the observation of the unmoved mover is an observation of self-division.

Yet this is steeped in further contradiction given nothingness is the means through which action occurs given it divides one phenomenon from another as evidenced by the multiplicity of an atom’s positions in time and space separated through a void. The multiplicity of the atom, in differing times and spaces, is the atom separate from itself, through void, thus is contradictory by nature. Under these terms, the distinctions which allows for being originate from nothingness even though only being exists and occurs only through itself; being cannot occur without nothingness thus resulting in the opposites of being and nothingness falling under a fallacy of equivocation as they exist through each other. In another respect it may be said that being occurs through being and being occurs through nothingness, yet this makes little sense.

Another contradiction results when looking into the argument further. Being is self-originating as only being exists, nothingness or potentiality, is the division and multiplication of that being. As self-originating being is fundamentally infinite. Infinite being is being without beginning or end thus the origins of being is a continual spontaneous nature in which it just appears from effectively nothing but itself. However as infinite, being is fundamentally indefinite thus it appears from effectively nothing considering both infinity and nothingness share the same nature as having no beginning or end. We only observe distinctions through relations and yet an infinite regress is an infinite number of relations thus making the phenomenon of relationship itself being indefinite. In other terms relationship is an act of time and space considering time and space, in one respect, connect seemingly distinct things as they change into each other; however, infinite time and space is infinite beginnings and ends thus is contradictory as beginnings and ends are without beginnings and ends. This makes the aspect of the ‘mover’ in the unmoved mover very vague and ambiguous.

In conclusion, the unmoved mover is a dichotomy similar to that of ‘being’ and ‘nothingness’, as such it is a contradiction. In these respects the origins of being is grounded in contradiction. This contradiction results from: the indefiniteness of the ‘unmoved’ within the unmoved mover, the dichotomy between the unmoved mover and the moved, the nothingness of the moved being acted upon by the unmoved mover, the unmoved mover existing in multiple states through the moved, the self-referentially of the unmoved mover through multiple unmoved movers, the equivocation of nothingness and being, and the indefiniteness of the ‘mover’ within the unmoved mover through infinite regress. Any discussion, or deeper analysis, of the unmoved mover results in absurdity.
Post Reply