Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 1, 2022 23:29:44 GMT
(page 1z/finished first post)
When delving into the nature of contradiction the laws of logic can, if not must, be applied given identity must be first understood. These laws are: The Law of Identity (P=P), The Law of Non-contradiction (P=/=-P), and The Law of Excluded Middle (P v –P). However considering these laws must be self-sustaining, if they are to be used as the grounds of all rational observation, a set of contradictions ensues as a result of a much avoided, but much needed, self-referentiality with this self-referentiality being needed if something is to stand on its own terms. This contradiction within the Laws of Identity is multi-faceted when the laws are applied to each other, however one contradiction will be observed for the sake of brevity. The contradiction is as follows:
1. There is either a Law of Identity or a Law of Non-contradiction according to the Law of Excluded Middle. This is considering the Law of Identity is about ‘equality’ and the Law of Non-Contradiction is about ‘non-equality’, both are relative opposites.
2. If the Law of Identity exists then there is not a Law of Non-contradiction; therefore P=P but P=-P. If P=-P then one existing assertion is equal to its non-existent state, i.e. the horse is equal to the field (i.e. ‘not horse’) and the house (i.e. ‘not horse’) and the car (i.e. ‘not horse’), etc. thus P becomes vague and senseless.
3. If the Law of Non-contradiction exists then there is not a Law of Identity; therefore P=/=-P but P=Q, P=R, P=S.... . If P=Q, P=R, P=S... the one assertion of P equivocates to a variety of phenomenon thus P becomes vague and senseless..
4. With the laws of logic applied to the laws of logic a contradiction occurs through self-referentiality with this self-referentiality being necessary in one respect but self-defeating in another.
Given that through self-referentiality a choice exists, between certain laws of logic as evidenced above through the application of the Law of Excluded Middle, the observation can be made that logic itself is subject to a choice of who, what, when, where, how and why it can be applied. This lends itself to further contradiction, as the laws being dependent upon choice are dependent upon something fundamentally irrational given there are no laws that defined the nature of choice. As such the laws are groundless and fundamentally acts of belief that give form to how we assume reality. This baselessness to the laws comes full circle in the respect that we can relate anything to everything and a question of identity ensues.
Considering anything can relate to everything the act of manifesting an identity is creation ‘ex nihilio’ or a creation from nothingness. This is given in the fact that everything effectively equates to nothing as it, i.e. everything, is undefinable much in the same respect nothing is undefinable. ‘Everything’ occurring through ‘everything’, i.e. ‘being through being’, means very little if next to nothing. There is no contrast for identity to result in when viewing only ‘everything’, however contradictorily the contrast of ‘everything to nothing’ is effectively saying a contrast between ‘everything’ and ‘everything’. This makes little sense and leads us to an example of senseless in the example of ‘the horse and the field’:
The field defines the horse as the horse exists through the field. However, the field has different qualities than the horse. These different qualities show that the field has something which the horse lacks. This lacking of said qualities of the horse allows the horse to exist through the field as this is a void which allows the horse to exist and move through.
The horse could not move, therefore exist, if this space was already cluttered through the same qualities of the horse which the horse already has. This void of the horse, embodied within the qualities of the field, allows the horse to exist with this existence being an emergence from that which the horse is not, which is the field.
The field, in its absence of qualities of the horse, allows the horse to emerge from it. The field is what the horse is not and as ‘not the horse’ acts as a negative limit in defining what the horse is not. This negative limit describes something by that which it is not, so in effect the field causes the horse to exist as the field is a negative definition of the horse with the horse being defined by what it is not.
And again, but in simpler terms, the horse is defined by what it is not. What the horse is not is the limit as to what the horse is. What the horse is not, ie the field, provides a contrasting definition to what the horse is with this contrast necessitating the horse emerges from the field.
This emergence from a phenomenon which is not the horse, ie the field, shows the horse as emerging from a void considering the field has a void of certain qualities found in the horse. This seems like a contradiction at first given the field is not a void. However the field as void of the horse's qualities shows a respective void of the horse itself thus a void is made manifest through contrast.
The void of the horse, through the field, shows the horse as emerging from something which is not the horse, ie void of the horse. In these respects the contrast which allows the horse to exist, the field that is, is a relative void. Being emerges from a void of its very same qualities with this void allowing for a contrast to occur. This contrast is definition of the phenomenon.
Void is necessary for contrast, contrast for definition of said being, thus void is necessary for definition. So yes the field is necessary for the horse to exist as it establishes a relationship necessary for existence, but dually the horse is not dependent upon only the field as some other phenomenon which is not the horse, ie all phenomena except the horse such as a car or tree or infinite number of things, allows for the necessary voids of qualities through which the horse exists. The horse exists through a void considering ‘what the horse is not’ is endless.
Now observing past the field one can see a whole variety of phenomena which are not the horse, thus what causes the negative limits of ‘what the horse is composed of’ ranges to all of being which is not the horse, which is a very considerable range of being and can be stated as: all negative limits are all being which is not the horse, thus all being which is not a horse is respectively the void of said horse.
Being cannot relate to another phenomenon unless there is a void as this void allows for the contrast necessary for a relationship to occur. This contrast is necessary for a relationship given a relationship is the equivocation of two or more different phenomenon where they are both the same except for where they are different. This difference, through contrast as an absence of one or more qualities relative to one phenomenon and another, allows for the individual definition of said entities where they are defined strictly for what they are as singular units that ‘stand apart’.
In simpler terms the horse may derive definition through equivocation to the field in the respect both are made up of molecules, with this equivocation occuring through the respect both have molecules, but the horse and field as having respectively different forms necessitates the form of the horse existing for what it is as a singular entity in contrast to the field with the form of the field existing for what it is as a singular entity in contrast to the horse. This is considering qualities of the field as absent in the horse and qualities of the horse are absent in the field.
Contrast allows for a singular entity to emerge from its respective void with this singularity being the phenomenon itself as a single occurrence which exists in opposition to its void. In simpler terms a phenomenon emerges from void and this emergence allows for its identity as a singular entity thus necessitating not all identity is grounded in a relationship.
But contradictorily we observe identity through relationship as there is no solitary nature to a phenomenon which is not dependent upon some other phenomenon. The glass is determined by what it is not, ie the chair, table, tv, etc. This negative limit, ie what the phenomenon is not, is the context which determines the limits of what is. In determining the limits of ‘what is’ a negative context acts as a spider web of causes considering ‘not chair’, ‘not table’, ‘not tv’ are connected to the event of the glass existing. What something is not causes what something is precisely because it is a negative definition but a definition nonetheless. Cause is multidimensional and non-linear because of its branching found in the contrast of ‘what it is’ to ‘what it is not’.
Yet equality exists as a form of definition which is in contrast to ‘contrast as definition’ with this furthering the contradictions observed. Equality is a part of definition considering equality occurs amidst different phenomena through a common quality which connects them. For example a dog and cat share the same quality of ‘mammal’ thus equate, only through, ‘mammal’. Equality is a connection, connection is a relationship, relationship is identity. This relationship points to one phenomenon. And yet in reference the prior points of the above argument this relationship amidst two different phenomenon through a common quality also simultaneously points to a contrast where one quality is absent in another. This absence is a void, this void is a contrast. For example a dog and cat are contrasting entities as the form of a dog's nose is different from thus of a cat, the dog’s nose lacks the shape of the cat’s nose and vice versa. Thus we can say that identity is not only grounded in equality but also contrast. The context of identity as ‘contrast’ points to identity as grounded in a singular event. This singular event occurs through contrast where the absence of one quality in one phenomenon, and its presence in another, points to the ‘presence’ of the phenomenon standing apart as a singular event coming from that which ‘it is not’. Identity is thus trifold:
1. Identity through equality is a singularity as the connection of different phenomena point to one phenomenon.
2. Identity through contrast is a singularity as the contrast manifests as a singular phenomenon standing apart as its own being.
3. Identity is a singularity with this singularity contradictory occurring both through ‘the relationship of equality’ and ‘the contrast of differences’.
These examples, and corresponding arguments, point to not only the contradiction of singularness but that of identity as well, considering identity stems from ‘singularness’. From this is can be derived that identity paradoxically makes little sense upon further examination; this prior statement is an act of identification thus furthering the contradiction.
When delving into the nature of contradiction the laws of logic can, if not must, be applied given identity must be first understood. These laws are: The Law of Identity (P=P), The Law of Non-contradiction (P=/=-P), and The Law of Excluded Middle (P v –P). However considering these laws must be self-sustaining, if they are to be used as the grounds of all rational observation, a set of contradictions ensues as a result of a much avoided, but much needed, self-referentiality with this self-referentiality being needed if something is to stand on its own terms. This contradiction within the Laws of Identity is multi-faceted when the laws are applied to each other, however one contradiction will be observed for the sake of brevity. The contradiction is as follows:
1. There is either a Law of Identity or a Law of Non-contradiction according to the Law of Excluded Middle. This is considering the Law of Identity is about ‘equality’ and the Law of Non-Contradiction is about ‘non-equality’, both are relative opposites.
2. If the Law of Identity exists then there is not a Law of Non-contradiction; therefore P=P but P=-P. If P=-P then one existing assertion is equal to its non-existent state, i.e. the horse is equal to the field (i.e. ‘not horse’) and the house (i.e. ‘not horse’) and the car (i.e. ‘not horse’), etc. thus P becomes vague and senseless.
3. If the Law of Non-contradiction exists then there is not a Law of Identity; therefore P=/=-P but P=Q, P=R, P=S.... . If P=Q, P=R, P=S... the one assertion of P equivocates to a variety of phenomenon thus P becomes vague and senseless..
4. With the laws of logic applied to the laws of logic a contradiction occurs through self-referentiality with this self-referentiality being necessary in one respect but self-defeating in another.
Given that through self-referentiality a choice exists, between certain laws of logic as evidenced above through the application of the Law of Excluded Middle, the observation can be made that logic itself is subject to a choice of who, what, when, where, how and why it can be applied. This lends itself to further contradiction, as the laws being dependent upon choice are dependent upon something fundamentally irrational given there are no laws that defined the nature of choice. As such the laws are groundless and fundamentally acts of belief that give form to how we assume reality. This baselessness to the laws comes full circle in the respect that we can relate anything to everything and a question of identity ensues.
Considering anything can relate to everything the act of manifesting an identity is creation ‘ex nihilio’ or a creation from nothingness. This is given in the fact that everything effectively equates to nothing as it, i.e. everything, is undefinable much in the same respect nothing is undefinable. ‘Everything’ occurring through ‘everything’, i.e. ‘being through being’, means very little if next to nothing. There is no contrast for identity to result in when viewing only ‘everything’, however contradictorily the contrast of ‘everything to nothing’ is effectively saying a contrast between ‘everything’ and ‘everything’. This makes little sense and leads us to an example of senseless in the example of ‘the horse and the field’:
The field defines the horse as the horse exists through the field. However, the field has different qualities than the horse. These different qualities show that the field has something which the horse lacks. This lacking of said qualities of the horse allows the horse to exist through the field as this is a void which allows the horse to exist and move through.
The horse could not move, therefore exist, if this space was already cluttered through the same qualities of the horse which the horse already has. This void of the horse, embodied within the qualities of the field, allows the horse to exist with this existence being an emergence from that which the horse is not, which is the field.
The field, in its absence of qualities of the horse, allows the horse to emerge from it. The field is what the horse is not and as ‘not the horse’ acts as a negative limit in defining what the horse is not. This negative limit describes something by that which it is not, so in effect the field causes the horse to exist as the field is a negative definition of the horse with the horse being defined by what it is not.
And again, but in simpler terms, the horse is defined by what it is not. What the horse is not is the limit as to what the horse is. What the horse is not, ie the field, provides a contrasting definition to what the horse is with this contrast necessitating the horse emerges from the field.
This emergence from a phenomenon which is not the horse, ie the field, shows the horse as emerging from a void considering the field has a void of certain qualities found in the horse. This seems like a contradiction at first given the field is not a void. However the field as void of the horse's qualities shows a respective void of the horse itself thus a void is made manifest through contrast.
The void of the horse, through the field, shows the horse as emerging from something which is not the horse, ie void of the horse. In these respects the contrast which allows the horse to exist, the field that is, is a relative void. Being emerges from a void of its very same qualities with this void allowing for a contrast to occur. This contrast is definition of the phenomenon.
Void is necessary for contrast, contrast for definition of said being, thus void is necessary for definition. So yes the field is necessary for the horse to exist as it establishes a relationship necessary for existence, but dually the horse is not dependent upon only the field as some other phenomenon which is not the horse, ie all phenomena except the horse such as a car or tree or infinite number of things, allows for the necessary voids of qualities through which the horse exists. The horse exists through a void considering ‘what the horse is not’ is endless.
Now observing past the field one can see a whole variety of phenomena which are not the horse, thus what causes the negative limits of ‘what the horse is composed of’ ranges to all of being which is not the horse, which is a very considerable range of being and can be stated as: all negative limits are all being which is not the horse, thus all being which is not a horse is respectively the void of said horse.
Being cannot relate to another phenomenon unless there is a void as this void allows for the contrast necessary for a relationship to occur. This contrast is necessary for a relationship given a relationship is the equivocation of two or more different phenomenon where they are both the same except for where they are different. This difference, through contrast as an absence of one or more qualities relative to one phenomenon and another, allows for the individual definition of said entities where they are defined strictly for what they are as singular units that ‘stand apart’.
In simpler terms the horse may derive definition through equivocation to the field in the respect both are made up of molecules, with this equivocation occuring through the respect both have molecules, but the horse and field as having respectively different forms necessitates the form of the horse existing for what it is as a singular entity in contrast to the field with the form of the field existing for what it is as a singular entity in contrast to the horse. This is considering qualities of the field as absent in the horse and qualities of the horse are absent in the field.
Contrast allows for a singular entity to emerge from its respective void with this singularity being the phenomenon itself as a single occurrence which exists in opposition to its void. In simpler terms a phenomenon emerges from void and this emergence allows for its identity as a singular entity thus necessitating not all identity is grounded in a relationship.
But contradictorily we observe identity through relationship as there is no solitary nature to a phenomenon which is not dependent upon some other phenomenon. The glass is determined by what it is not, ie the chair, table, tv, etc. This negative limit, ie what the phenomenon is not, is the context which determines the limits of what is. In determining the limits of ‘what is’ a negative context acts as a spider web of causes considering ‘not chair’, ‘not table’, ‘not tv’ are connected to the event of the glass existing. What something is not causes what something is precisely because it is a negative definition but a definition nonetheless. Cause is multidimensional and non-linear because of its branching found in the contrast of ‘what it is’ to ‘what it is not’.
Yet equality exists as a form of definition which is in contrast to ‘contrast as definition’ with this furthering the contradictions observed. Equality is a part of definition considering equality occurs amidst different phenomena through a common quality which connects them. For example a dog and cat share the same quality of ‘mammal’ thus equate, only through, ‘mammal’. Equality is a connection, connection is a relationship, relationship is identity. This relationship points to one phenomenon. And yet in reference the prior points of the above argument this relationship amidst two different phenomenon through a common quality also simultaneously points to a contrast where one quality is absent in another. This absence is a void, this void is a contrast. For example a dog and cat are contrasting entities as the form of a dog's nose is different from thus of a cat, the dog’s nose lacks the shape of the cat’s nose and vice versa. Thus we can say that identity is not only grounded in equality but also contrast. The context of identity as ‘contrast’ points to identity as grounded in a singular event. This singular event occurs through contrast where the absence of one quality in one phenomenon, and its presence in another, points to the ‘presence’ of the phenomenon standing apart as a singular event coming from that which ‘it is not’. Identity is thus trifold:
1. Identity through equality is a singularity as the connection of different phenomena point to one phenomenon.
2. Identity through contrast is a singularity as the contrast manifests as a singular phenomenon standing apart as its own being.
3. Identity is a singularity with this singularity contradictory occurring both through ‘the relationship of equality’ and ‘the contrast of differences’.
These examples, and corresponding arguments, point to not only the contradiction of singularness but that of identity as well, considering identity stems from ‘singularness’. From this is can be derived that identity paradoxically makes little sense upon further examination; this prior statement is an act of identification thus furthering the contradiction.
