Draft I Part III

(page 1 y) All phenomena are dualistic in the respect that you have the phenomenon and you have the absence of the phenomenon. To observe one thing is to observe a dual nature which is not the case. This dualism of the phenomenon and the absence of the phenomenon occurs through the distinction of said phenomenon which allows it to stand apart from what it is not. For example, the observation "a square has four angles" results in the observation "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle". One phenomenon exists and its negation results as a contrast to the aforementioned phenomenon. The phenomenon of "a square has four angles" exists in contrast to "there is a phenomenon which does not have four angles such as a circle".

The first phenomenon is observed due to its contrast considering the phenomenon is observed as an individual entity relative to what it is not. Using a simple example: ‘one being’ is observed because of its contrast to ‘multiple beings’. This contrast is a contradiction, as there is a separation in the act of standing apart, and this contradiction observes a void within the observation. This void is made evident through the act of distinction, i.e. one phenomenon in standing apart from another has specific qualities the other lacks. This “lack” is a void as it is an absence.

This nature of dualism in the observation of phenomena goes deeper when observing observation itself. This is a form of measurement, however, given we are making distinctions. This occurs when we observe ‘observation’ as a phenomenon. We measure phenomena through many different dualisms such as ‘subject and object’ or ‘this or that’ or ‘positive and negative’, however a critical foundation within observation is the dualism of ‘whole’ and ‘parts’. This dualism is not negated when we observe ‘observation’ or rather attempt to measure it. This dualism, upon further examination, has its problems though. However, this nature of using the term ‘problem’ is relative and the term ‘problem’ can be observed rather as ‘paradox’ or ‘non-sensical’. Now, as to the question of “measurement and the whole/parts?”:



1. To measure something is to separate it from the larger whole of relations by giving boundaries to it as an ‘individual’ which stands apart from the whole.



2. As standing apart from the whole the individual exists in contrast to the whole as the remaining whole is what the individual is not.



3. This contrast creates a void between the individual and the whole thus a state of contradiction ensues. An example of this is the individual finger standing apart from the hand, i.e. the finger is not the hand.



4. Considering the individual, as a part of the whole, cannot exist without the whole the act of individuation, or rather the manifestation of a distinction, is the whole separating itself from itself. In other terms the part separated from the whole is the whole self-negating as the whole is the sum of its parts, to separate the part from the whole is to separate the whole into other wholes.



5. This separation of a whole, i.e. the distinction, from the surrounding whole necessitates measurement as grounded in separation, thus contradiction through opposition, with this opposition being founded in the contrasting of one whole, i.e. the distinction, to another whole, i.e. that through which the distinction manifests.



6. Furthermore, this separation of the whole as contradictive not only necessitates measurement as contradictive but the manifestation of a gulf between one whole and another through said contradiction.


7. This gulf, as the grounding of measurement considering the act of distinction is measurement, necessitates ‘being as measured’ as ‘being’ being contradictive.


This formless nature of being, as a result of its inherent contradiction through the act of measurement, lends itself to further argument in the respect that the dichotomy of ‘the whole’ and ‘the parts’, through which we measure, requires further analysis. This analysis manifests further absurdities:



1. There is a totality of being.



2. This totality of being is one being as totality encompasses everything.



3. In encompassing everything a multiplicity of phenomenon are observed given everything assumes a state of related particles, ie "parts"; it is further necessitated that the whole is a set of relations and as a set of relations necessitates parts.



4. This totality of being is a relationship of parts; as a relationship of parts each part is an individual given relationships only occur between parts, i.e. ‘individuals’ or ‘distinctions’.



5. Each part as an individual is each part as a whole given one part is distinct to another part and this distinction of each part manifests a nature of singleness; this distinction of one phenomenon to another necessitates wholeness of said phenomenon considering it stands as distinct.



6. The whole of being, as a totality, is thus a series of individual wholes.



7. This total whole, ie totality, is composed of itself as each of the series of individual wholes mirrors the total whole itself in the respect that each part stands as a whole.



8. The one whole manifested through the many wholes necessitates the one as fragmented.



9. As fragmented the whole is no longer the whole yet paradoxically necessitates many wholes.



10. This fragmentation of the whole necessitates a relationship between the many wholes as the many wholes share the distinct quality of wholeness thus mirroring the greater quality of the one whole. In other terms the parts of the whole are connected through the quality of being ‘wholes’. This lies in contradiction to the aforementioned statement that the whole as fragmented thus no longer a whole, it is a whole precisely because of its connectedness.



11. However the one whole is fragmented thus the many wholes, in mirroring the fragmented and paradoxical nature of the one whole, are in themselves composed of many wholes.



12. The whole moves toward a state of fragmentation because of its dependence on distinct parts. It is no longer a whole yet the wholes from which it is derived are in fact wholes as they are distinctions.



13. These multiple wholes are fragmented into further distinct parts, as the one whole is fragmented, thus sharing the same fragmented nature between the whole and the wholes.



14. This underlying fragmentation of the ‘wholes’ and the fragmentation of the ‘whole from the wholes’ paradoxically necessitates a connection between the ‘wholes’ and the ‘whole and wholes’; this connection is observed through the same nature of fragmentation which the whole and wholes share.



15. The whole/wholes as fragmented are thus connected through this underlying quality of fragmentation they share; dually as connected they are fragmented as only a connection can occur if there are firstly parts to be connected.



16. Thus the whole exists but is dually not itself a whole. This is a non-sensical observation.



17. A contradiction thus occurs in measurement as measurement is the manifestation of whole/wholes; this contradiction also applies to the use of the term "totality" in the beginning of the argument as it is a form of measurement applied to what we know of reality in the respect it is a summation or rather ‘whole’.



18. We measure reality through the dichotomy of the whole and the wholes (parts), yet this dichotomy is dually not a dichotomy as a dichotomy necessitates a relationship therefore a singularity. This is non-sensical or rather beyond the senses.



19. In conceptualizing a totality a state of contradiction occurs as the total is not only composed of itself, through the underlying quality of ‘the whole’ existing through ‘wholes’, but is fragmented, due to it being a multiplicity of ‘wholes’. It thus loses its nature of "totality" as the total is no longer the total as a state of being exists outside the total because of said fragmentation of the total, i.e. the fragmentation of a phenomenon necessitates a state beyond its unity thus is no longer itself.



20. The Totality both exists and does not exist; this is a contradiction thus measurement is a contradiction as measurement is based around manifestation of the distinction known as the ‘total’ which can be viewed as synonymous to the ‘whole’



In observing the contradictory nature of the measurement through the dichotomy, or rather lack of, between whole and wholes (parts) further analysis from another angle can be applied:



1. There is being.



2. There is an absence of being as a deficiency of being.



3. There are two states to being as ‘being as a whole’ and ‘being as a part’. ‘Whole’ is respective to ‘being as a the singular sum of relations’, ‘part’ is respective to ‘deficiency of being’ (as a part lacks certain qualities found within the relative parts that stand in contrast to it).



4. ‘Being as a whole’ exists in relationship to ‘being as a part’ thus both function together as a whole. This is paradoxical and somewhat senseless as the dichotomy between whole and part is negated for only the whole.



5. The relationship between ‘being as a whole’ and ‘being as a part’ results in a contrast considering this relationship points to two parts in the respect that ‘being as a whole’ and ‘being as a part’ are both distinctions. In this respect both function as parts and not as a whole. This is paradoxical and somewhat senseless as well considering as the dichotomy between whole and part is negated for only the part.



6. ‘Holism’, as a distinction, is a part of ‘the parts’; each part is a whole relative to another part as a whole, i.e. the wholeness manifested through the distinction of the part, and this wholeness of each part is ‘part’ of its identity. ‘The parts’, as the sum of things considering each part is a set of further parts, is the whole.



7. A contradiction occurs through the application of the ‘whole’ and the ‘part’ thus necessitating contradiction underlying these to foundations of measurement thus measurement itself.



In this respects measurement, as an act of observation, results in a state of senselessness when measured further. Under these terms to make any judgement requires a following contradiction and if the contradiction is to cease so much more the act of judgement is to cease. This cessation of judgement, however, is a part of observation, just as much as judgement is a part as well, and is unavoidable thus leading to a question of “what is really sensible considering the contradictory, or paradoxical, nature of the whole and the parts?”. This questioning of sensibility can be extended further if the phenomenon known as ‘measurement’ is further questioned. This further questioning of measurement leads to another, and in this respect final, argument about the nature of the ‘whole’ and the ‘part’ which is inherent within the act of measurement:

1. The statement "All that exists is ‘x’" necessitates a ‘whole being’ as ‘one being’ considering "all" is the summation of things which can be viewed synonymously to the term "everything". In other terms a summation is a whole and this summation as a whole necessitates the whole as one given the summation is one.



2. This whole exists through the relationship of its parts thus making the whole, through these relations, a ‘part’ of being given the ‘whole’ is a ‘part’ of the relationships between beings through the individual distinctions which manifest the ‘parts’ as ‘wholes’. In one respect the term ‘all’ results in ‘parts’ considering ‘all’ is a statement of multiplicity as it is dependent upon relations of parts. Paradoxically this relationship of parts, even though necessitating a multiplicity because of the distinctions of said parts, is a whole as the relationship is a connection of multiple things as one. There is a false dichotomy between the ‘whole’ and the ‘part’ in this one respect. Contradictorily, because of their distinct natures a dualism also exists in the respect we can distinguish the whole from the parts and the parts from the whole. This leads to another contradiction as the ‘whole’ is ‘part’ of this dichotomy thus no longer the ‘whole’.



3. However, ‘part of being’ is an individual state and as such is a whole in the respect it exists as an individual entity. This individuality as a whole is necessitated by the singularity of the phenomenon.



4. This individual entity can only be observed relative to another individual entity, through the phenomenon of ‘contrast’, thus is no longer an individual entity standing apart as it is dependent upon this relationship. This is considering the individual entity is one phenomenon in contrast to another thus necessitating a relationship of opposites, i.e ‘that which opposes’ through the act of contrast. In simpler terms there is ‘the phenomenon’ and the opposite as ‘not the phenomenon’ and one contrasts to the other but this contrast necessitates a dependency.



5. However, the relationship of individuals results in the connection of said individuals as one thing thus ‘one’ individual reality results from the ‘many’.



6. Many things result in one thing and one thing results in many things. This dualism between the one and the many results in one respect ‘many’ phenomenon occurring, because of said dualism, considering both the ‘one’ and the ‘many’ are both individual phenomenon as universal blanket terms. However in another respect ‘one’ phenomenon occurs considering both the ‘one’ and the ‘many’ are both connected through the dependency of one upon another because of their necessary relationship through the act of contrast. Dually they are connected through the underlying quality of being ‘general’ or ‘universal’ that both share because of their blanketing nature in describing reality.



7. The ‘one’ and the ‘many’ result in contradiction in the respect that the dualism manifests each as a particular thus negating the ‘one’ for the ‘many’. However the contradiction continues as the relationship through contrast of the ‘one’ and ‘many’ negates the ‘many’ as both are connected. This contradiction of the ‘one’ and the ‘many’ occurs through the classification of phenomena under the respective ‘whole’ and the respective ‘particular’. Being occurring through the act of classification is being through contradiction.



8. This nature of contradiction, which underlies all classified being(s) considering ‘whole’ and ‘part’ are contradictory, is a singular state of affairs. In other terms contradiction is the underlying nature of measured phenomena and as such is a quality all measured phenomena share thus necessitating an absence of contradiction, as an absence of separation, that exists at the same time. Because everything measured contradicts nothing that is measured contradicts because all measured phenomena connect because of said quality of contradiction which underlies them all; in sharing the quality of ‘contradiction’ measured phenomena do not contradict…and this is a further contradiction as the non-contradiction is defined through contradiction.



9. As a singular state of affairs, or rather an act of distinction, the phenomenon known as ‘contradiction’ gains its identity through contrast with what is ‘not contradictive’ thus resulting in many states of being, ie "contradictive" and "not contradictive".



10. This dichotomy between ‘contradictive’ and ‘not contradictive’ defines itself through a relationship, in which one is defined through the other, thus exists as "one" state of being. This relationship exists in contrast to an absence of relationship, as both are distinct, thus resulting in "many" states of being.



11. Reality through measurement is both a contradiction and not a contradiction and neither a contradiction nor not a contradiction. It is simultaneously both a contradiction and not a contradiction or neither a contradiction nor not a contradiction.



In summation reality cannot be measured when the act of measurement is in itself measured. The arguments provided start with rational premises and in turn result in not only contradiction but non-sensical conclusions. In these respects, from an everyday standpoint, the act of judgement, through measurement, should be limited where it can be considering reality is beyond measurement due to the inherent contradictory nature of measurement.