Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 30, 2022 21:29:28 GMT
(Page 1 starting post 3 ending post 5 with “atoms”) Context is that through which something exists. An example of this is a horse existing through the context of the field as the horse exists through the field. Another example is that of the person existing within the context of his or her job as the person exists through said job. The context is the limit, or rather set of boundaries, that enables a phenomenon to exist by providing a sense of order in the respect that this limit, which is the context, enables a sense of finiteness. Context is thus the encapsulation of being but this definition has its problems. Under these terms everything exists through something else thus leading to a contradiction in the respect that there is always a context, beyond a phenomenon, that does not exist through anything other than itself. This is given as self-evident in the respect that a potential infinite regress results when everything exists through continually regressing contexts:
1. ‘A’, which is a relative context as it contains other phenomena, occurs through context ‘B’.
2. Context ‘B’ exists through context ‘C’.
3. Context ‘C’ exists through context ‘D’.
4. This continually progresses.
5. This infinite regress necessitates an ever changing finite state because of the infinite potentiality of said regress; there is a perpetually regressing number of contexts which are actual but this actual state is always finite given its quality of having definition that is the final context itself (this is considering that definition is the opposite of infinity as infinity is indefinite and we only observe definition).
6. Every time a context is observed there is a potential, or rather un-actualized, context beyond it thus leaving the observed context as the final context remaining for the observation that occurs; however this final context changes when the observation changes given that this regression is perpetual change.
7. In these respects the actual final context is always the context that does not exist through another context, as its potential is un-actualized because of said potentiality being un-actuality, thus leaving this context as fundamentally senseless in the respect there is nothing through which it exists during that moment of its observation.
8. This absence of ‘existing through something’ results in said context as having to be self-referential and without comparison thus resulting in it meaning any an everything given it is the final context, for that specific observation, through which all other contexts exist.
9. All contexts, as relative to the observation, are relative ending points of said regress thus all are self-referential at some point within the course of many observations observing many different ‘final’ contexts. In other terms every time we observe an infinite regress we observe a different actual final context because of the continual regression of contexts resulting from an ever changing state.
10. Given this final context changes with the change in observation, because of the continual potential contexts, the series of contexts that result from said regression always result in a changing final context which encapsulates them all.
11. The continual reduction of contexts to further contexts leads to a final context which is always changing yet paradoxically has no grounds thus is meaningless. Its grounds are in its potentiality but this perpetual potentiality is perpetual un-actuality.
12. In these respects all regressive analysis’ have ever changing grounds which are always self-referential as they result in the continually changing final context existing under nothing other than its own grounds.
This continual change of perpetually finite contexts leads to another contradiction in reduction that further contradicts the previous argument. For this argument the term ‘particle’ will replace ‘context’ so that visualization is clearer:
1. There is only a particle.
2. This particle is reduced to another particle.
3. This continues on ad-infinitum.
4. The particle is never really reduced as its reduction leaves the nature of the particle remaining during every act of reduction.
Under this contradiction context is the repetition of a phenomenon which contains further phenomena given context occurs through context; this quality of context is ever present thus self-referential and without compare. In these respects the quality known as ‘context’ is a loop both containing and contained within other contexts. Through these terms to talk of context is to have a contradictory and meaningless conversation. Considering everything is reducible to context, even including the observation that context reduces to context, another set of contradictions follow as everything different results from a universal core sameness thus making the quality of ‘difference’ and the quality of ‘sameness’ fundamentally equivalent.
Given everything is reducible to "x" all distinctions are false thus necessitating the Law of Non-Contradiction as having faulty grounds. Using the example of the square peg and square hole one can see two opposite phenomena, the peg and the hole, equate through the common grounds of the square shape which forms them both. The same occurs for the logical expression of +P=/=-P where both +P and -P both share the form of P. A final example is that of +1 and -1 on a number line both sharing the same quality of the line extending from point 0.
All being summated as context makes the context without context as it only relates to itself therefore only itself exists; context is thus absolute. Contexts are ‘being’ and ‘being’ is absolute as only ‘being’ exists. Being conditioned on being is just being; contexts are thus non-contextual as only context exists without comparison but this statement is senseless in the respect that contextuality equates to non-contextuality. To be relative to oneself is to be relative to nothing, thus no relativity, considering self-referentiality results in an absence of comparison which is necessary for distinction. This self-referentiality of context resulting in an absence of form of context is contradictory as well given self-referentiality is a loop thus necessitating a universal form to context as a ‘loop’. An example of this can be seen in the following argument where the term ‘atom’ will replace ‘context’ for further visual clarity:
1. If all is composed of atoms then awareness is composed of atoms thus atoms are aware of themselves as awareness is ‘aware’ of awareness.
2. The atom as self-referential becomes meaningless.
3. However the atom self-referencing itself is a circular form thus necessitating consciousness as having a form beyond the atom; this form is the loop or rather the circle.
4. In consciousness being the self-referencing of the atom it is no longer the atom as a form exists beyond the atom, i.e. the ‘loop’ or ‘circle’.
In these respects there is a form beyond the context but this form, the loop/circle in this case, is also a context. A contradiction ensues as the context exists beyond the context but this is a context thus the context never exists beyond itself and yet it does. The absolute nature of the relative context is non-sensical upon further analysis.