|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2023 17:46:08 GMT
1. To make something clear, through rhetoric or rather the use of words, is to make something transparent in the respect that it is now "see through" as its definition allows one to see connections that go beyond said thing. This "seeing through" allows the now clear thing to no longer be a barrier to understanding as its limits become transparent as a result of its perceived connections.
2. The observation of change is the observation of transparency as the phenomenon changing into another is the phenomenon being seen through another thus showing a vacuous yet clear, or rather 'see through', nature to being.
3. It is difficult to rationalize the Truth as rationalization requires the dividing up of said Truth, through definitions, with this division resulting in hindrances as the fine lines of definitions now become barriers.
4. Order requires boundaries. Boundaries require a distinction. A distinction requires a standing apart of one thing from another. This "standing apart" results in contradiction. Order is contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2023 19:34:35 GMT
5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 28, 2023 22:32:59 GMT
6. Order comes from spontaneity as it just appears. The impression that one thing appears from another is just an impression as one thing occurs then a different thing with this difference being a form of spontaneity. Connection between things only shows an absence of distinction between things thus leaving us only with differences and with this difference there is a spontaneity. Order requires symmetry and with symmetry an absence of distinctions. One thing leading to another thing is just continual spontaneity, due to difference, as the absence of distinctions required between symmetrical things leaves a nature of emptiness.
7. We assume order because one thing follows another yet it is this action of "one thing following another" that can be dually observed in reverse where anything can be observed as ordered if one thing follows another, yet in the nature of a raw spontaneity one thing follows another thus spontaneity can come before order. The observation of order is as spontaneous as the spontaneity that allows the one thing to be followed by another.
8. "The more things change the more they stay the same." With the continual change of a thing comes a transparency of boundaries as one thing is seen through another due to their connections. This transparency eliminates the boundaries into a conceptual unity as one distinctness leads to a further distinctness thus leaving distinctness as empty in itself as there is no comparison for it as that is all there is. In change one boundary results in another thus resulting in a transparent unity where paradoxically all things become one as they are connected by their very nature of having boundaries with one boundary being seen through another as one is connected to another. The transparency of things is the emptiness of things with this emptiness occurring by the inherent oneness things share due to an absence of distinction between boundaries (as all there is is boundaries) and one boundary leading to another thus leaving it as empty in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2023 15:24:21 GMT
9. To create a distinction requires a distinction between further distinctions thus one distinction leads to another with an inevitable ambiguity as to why there is a distinction to begin with and why there are distinctions to begin with. Distinction is thus spontaneous in nature as what we are left with is it appearing 'as it is' with a source in nothingness and an end in nothingness as the continuity of distinctions leaves us with an inevitable emptiness from which things 'just occur' considering this continuity of distinction is a paradoxical absence of distinction. This is considering the act of distinctions leading to further distinctions is a transparent self-referentiality as the self-ness of the distinctions has nothing beyond it but itself which in turn lends credit to the emptiness of said distinction(s) as there is no comparison beyond it/them. This emptiness of the distinction(s) is fundamentally a unity as the multiplicity of things share the same nature of being distinct and with this same nature of being distinct there is no distinction between said distinction. However to assume the opposite, that there is distinctions between distinctions is to observe a contradiction of the nature of distinction, through a self-opposition, in which case the nature of distinction self-negates thus leaving an absence of distinction that in turn result in the emptiness of unity.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2023 16:21:14 GMT
10. "Thing" is an ambiguous term if all distinctions are things as distinction requires further distinction and this continuity results in an absence of beginning or end thus an absence of distinction. The ambiguity necessitates an absence of sense, an absence of distinction, as to what "thing" really means thus leaving "thing" paradoxically as "not a thing" or "no thing". This paradoxical nature leaves us with "thing" as fundamentally a see-through and clear term thus relegating knowledge, through this foundational term, as vacuous and illusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2023 16:33:29 GMT
11. A boundary between boundaries necessitates the phenomenon of boundary as divided against itself thus a contradiction. Knowledge's requirement of boundaries is a requirement of contradiction with this contradictory nature emphasized within the observation that for every 'x perspective' there is a perspective of 'not x perspective'. Knowledge's grounding in contradiction, which results in further contradiction, results in knowledge being its own antithesis as it is the act of contradiction. Even then this contradiction contradicts itself thus leaving us with no contradiction, through a double negation (i.e. not not this or not not that), but with this absence of contradiction comes further contradiction as the absence of contradiction is to contradict contradiction. This senseless nature to knowledge makes it fundamentally transparent in the respect that the absence of sense is a formlessness and with this formlessness comes transparency.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2023 16:41:52 GMT
12. Multiplicity alludes to being as transparent considering that with multiplicity one thing is seen through another under the nature of contrast. Unity alludes to being as transparent considering that which unity there is no separating distinctions between said things thus an absence of boundaries. Transparency is thus paradoxical and with this paradox comes a deeper nature of transparency given that the paradox results in a formless nature to truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2023 12:21:31 GMT
In the chapter 4 you say that the order is contradiction. My personal thought is that here we can say that the order causes the contradiction.
Because if x causes y (or the x is the reason for y), it doesn't mean that x cannot be a reason for a certain z which is okay, and x causes z doesn't a contradiction.
For example:
f(→)_x__y__z
x____1___0__1
Here, x can be taken as not a contradiction for itself (as a self-reason), does fail implying y, and not failing for z. Then, the x (the order here), isn't a contradiction for all the interpretations. And being not fail for any interpretations it is not equal to contradiction. Because it had to if the order would be contradiction for any interpretations.
For the order such interpretation then x implies z isn't a contradiction is: when the x (the order) is the z (itself). So, if the order implies the order there is no contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2023 12:30:01 GMT
5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries. Here might be a conceptual limitation for us to view any possible ways for boundaries to exist in this way. For example, the plain number P and the natural numbers N: – is P enough for N? (Can we say there's only the plain numbers?) – what kind of relations between P and N, and anything else? What kind of boundaries these boundaries have? The same is about the complex numbers. If 2 is a complex numbers as "2+i²" (and each N is "x+i²"), then what kind of boundaries "+i²" have corresponding to the other N or other numbers? As long as we cannot be positively sure about all the possible sorts of nature for our boundaries as a matter or substance for them, then how can we be sure about existence of new middle boundaries for any types of boundaries? The same problem is for the discreet-continual problem: what kind of boundaries they have? How do they relate to each other? In which way? And in which way a soul and a body relates? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 14, 2023 20:02:57 GMT
13. Empirical senses put boundaries to the world and blind us as they manifest a thing to us by superficiality or strictly it just being an image. Only by sensing the empirical senses do we observe one thing leading to another thus a connection that induces a transparency as one thing occurs, and is sensed, through another. This is a transparency through contrast as one thing is seen through another only because it stands apart from another. This standing apart is a contradiction that occurs because of barriers. The contradiction of barriers, as one thing standing apart from another, results in a paradoxical transparent unity of things as boundaries occur through the standing apart from other boundaries (boundaries are sensed through further contrasting boundaries) as a boundary with this act of standing apart, which results from boundaries, being shared by all things.
This leaves us sense the nonsense of the empirical senses with this nonsense being the sense of a thing by what it is not through the act of one boundary, or thing, standing apart form another. The sensing of nonsense is the sensing of things through what it is not and this only occurs through the emptiness that results from the contradiction of things standing apart.
14. Change is the emptiness of things as one thing resulting in another is the manifestation of further distinctions from an inherent emptiness, which has no boundaries, given the new distinctions (resulting from change) have a said emptiness in themselves as they are dependent upon the contrast of further distinctions. This nature of distinction occurring through further distinction, as a comparison or contrast, necessitates a dependency upon continuous contexts that leaves an emptiness of selfhood. Change is emptiness and this emptiness is an absence of distinction through the continuum of further distinctions that leave the nature of distinction as fundamentally empty of meaning. Perpetual change is perpetual sameness as perpetual distinction has no comparison to make it distinct from itself. However if the phenomenon of distinction where distinct form itself it would no longer be distinct as to be distinct from distinction is no longer distinction, thus from this other angle distinction is also empty. There is no distinction between distinctions if one tries to encapsulate the nature of distinction within a squared rational framework, otherwise all there would be is distinction and this in turn would leave distinction meaningless as there is no comparison for it to occur unless a contradictory self-division of distinction comparing to itself takes place in which case anything can be said about distinction.
15. In infinite space every point is a center point but this leaves every other point not a center point (as there can only be one center point) thus every point is both a center point and not a center point thus leaving the point within infinite space non-sensical.
16. All repetition requires change as the act of repetition is the continuity of a thing through time and space with this continuity requiring gaps between the instance of one thing and its further appearance in another time and space. This gap necessitates repetition as an act of continual distinctions in time and space of said thing with, otherwise there would only be one instance of said thing with this one instance being formless as it would have no comparison to the other times and spaces through which this thing must repeat in order to gain an identity through relation. This repetition is thus dependent upon change with each new appearance of said thing no longer being the thing which supposedly reappears as the new time and space is the new thing. Repetition is cyclical thus has no beginning or end thus no distinction in one respect (as there is no beginning or end) while in another respect is perpetual differentiation as each new time and space is a new identity. Sameness and change are thus one.
17. Sameness is an absence of distinctions which separate things and perpetual distinction is an absence of distinction as there is no distinctions between distinctions if all there is is distinction. Dually from another angle to distinguish distinctions is to have the phenomenon of distinction negate itself through a self-opposition thus is paradoxically no longer distinction as it distinguishes away distinctions.
18. The continual renewal of things is the continual change of things with this continuity of change pointing to an inherent emptiness within the selfhood of all things, through a dependency upon further conditions, thus leaving a form of unity as this perpetual emptiness of selfhood has an absence of distinction that allows it to underlie all things.
19. We only understand things by ceasing our understanding of these very same things as understanding creates a barrier and with barriers comes separation and contradiction.
20. If it is a thing it will eventually become exhausted due to its relative nature as the continual dependency upon progressive contexts, through which it is observed, leaves an emptiness of it being a thing in itself. The more contexts required for a thing to be observed leaves it in a less and lesser state of appearing as a this in itself. This exhaustion in observation points to an emptiness and with this emptiness comes a nature of transparency.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 14, 2023 20:24:28 GMT
In the chapter 4 you say that the order is contradiction. My personal thought is that here we can say that the order causes the contradiction. Because if x causes y (or the x is the reason for y), it doesn't mean that x cannot be a reason for a certain z which is okay, and x causes z doesn't a contradiction. For example: f(→)_x__y__z x____1___0__1 Here, x can be taken as not a contradiction for itself (as a self-reason), does fail implying y, and not failing for z. Then, the x (the order here), isn't a contradiction for all the interpretations. And being not fail for any interpretations it is not equal to contradiction. Because it had to if the order would be contradiction for any interpretations. For the order such interpretation then x implies z isn't a contradiction is: when the x (the order) is the z (itself). So, if the order implies the order there is no contradiction. And effect is an extension of the cause thus only one thing is really observed. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 14, 2023 20:26:57 GMT
5. If all is boundaries, and boundaries are distinctions from other boundaries (otherwise without distinction there would be no boundary), then there is a boundary between boundaries thus making the boundary as a contradictive in nature. This contradiction makes the boundary as fundamentally 'see through', thus no longer a boundary, considering the opposition of boundaries makes the nature of the boundary as empty as the act of standing apart through distinction creates a gap through separation; the boundary is a gap and the gap is empty of distinction. This emptiness of the boundary makes it paradoxically not a boundary thus there is nothing is stop one from seeing through it to further boundaries. Here might be a conceptual limitation for us to view any possible ways for boundaries to exist in this way. For example, the plain number P and the natural numbers N: – is P enough for N? (Can we say there's only the plain numbers?) – what kind of relations between P and N, and anything else? What kind of boundaries these boundaries have? The same is about the complex numbers. If 2 is a complex numbers as "2+i²" (and each N is "x+i²"), then what kind of boundaries "+i²" have corresponding to the other N or other numbers? As long as we cannot be positively sure about all the possible sorts of nature for our boundaries as a matter or substance for them, then how can we be sure about existence of new middle boundaries for any types of boundaries? The same problem is for the discreet-continual problem: what kind of boundaries they have? How do they relate to each other? In which way? And in which way a soul and a body relates? In one thing standing apart from another we see one thing through another, as one thing compares to another, thus with contrast comes a transparency of things. I see the dirt through the blade of grass because the grass stands apart from the dirt. The grass is empty in itself without the dirt and this emptiness necessitates a thing beyond it. The fact that the grass stands apart from the dirt allows the contrast between dirt and grass to happen. I cannot see one thing through another unless contrast occurs because without contrast there is a formlessness as contrast allows for definition. I observe the dirt because of the grass, or vice-versa, thus one thing leads to another. In one thing leading to another one thing is observed through another. In one thing being observed because of another the nature of things have a transparent nature (empty of self-hood). |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 15, 2023 10:35:03 GMT
In the chapter 4 you say that the order is contradiction. My personal thought is that here we can say that the order causes the contradiction. Because if x causes y (or the x is the reason for y), it doesn't mean that x cannot be a reason for a certain z which is okay, and x causes z doesn't a contradiction. For example: f(→)_x__y__z x____1___0__1 Here, x can be taken as not a contradiction for itself (as a self-reason), does fail implying y, and not failing for z. Then, the x (the order here), isn't a contradiction for all the interpretations. And being not fail for any interpretations it is not equal to contradiction. Because it had to if the order would be contradiction for any interpretations. For the order such interpretation then x implies z isn't a contradiction is: when the x (the order) is the z (itself). So, if the order implies the order there is no contradiction. And effect is an extension of the cause thus only one thing is really observed. Impossible. You offer to conceptualise the inner contradictory object this means for any objects of such to have parts. How are you supposed to see one object that is cause and reason at the same time? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 15, 2023 10:45:46 GMT
Here might be a conceptual limitation for us to view any possible ways for boundaries to exist in this way. For example, the plain number P and the natural numbers N: – is P enough for N? (Can we say there's only the plain numbers?) – what kind of relations between P and N, and anything else? What kind of boundaries these boundaries have? The same is about the complex numbers. If 2 is a complex numbers as "2+i²" (and each N is "x+i²"), then what kind of boundaries "+i²" have corresponding to the other N or other numbers? As long as we cannot be positively sure about all the possible sorts of nature for our boundaries as a matter or substance for them, then how can we be sure about existence of new middle boundaries for any types of boundaries? The same problem is for the discreet-continual problem: what kind of boundaries they have? How do they relate to each other? In which way? And in which way a soul and a body relates? In one thing standing apart from another we see one thing through another, as one thing compares to another, thus with contrast comes a transparency of things. I see the dirt through the blade of grass because the grass stands apart from the dirt. The grass is empty in itself without the dirt and this emptiness necessitates a thing beyond it. The fact that the grass stands apart from the dirt allows the contrast between dirt and grass to happen. I cannot see one thing through another unless contrast occurs because without contrast there is a formlessness as contrast allows for definition. I observe the dirt because of the grass, or vice-versa, thus one thing leads to another. In one thing leading to another one thing is observed through another. In one thing being observed because of another the nature of things have a transparent nature (empty of self-hood). Ha ha, this indeed true. You know, I remember myself ~13 years ago. Then I didn't know about philosophy almost anything, except for reading only few first chapters of Aristotle's "Metaphysics" (I book), and Avanesov's "Philosophy of Suicidology" (also only few first chapters). And that thought – as you introduced here - came to my mind. I remember this moment enough clearly. I also couldn't comprehend – did it mean that any things must exist? (I mean all the possible kinds of them.) Because, if no kinds were previously known or introduced, then how things could suit those kinds if this (an ability to have kinds) wasn't introduced before? For any thing, for me then, it must be necessary to have an ability or something to transform into that new kind. Let's also imagine that a thing is possessing or accepting the new kind. It doesn't seem impossible for a thing to "disagree" to accept that new look or kind. I mean that if that new kind is new or alien for a thing that kind can be false or wrong. And if this kind is wrong, no kinds will be suited for the thing. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 21, 2023 19:57:18 GMT
21. The continual progression of a thing, through repetition, necessitates a thing coming from nothingness as the repetition of this thing results in little variations, little distinctions, that occur spontaneously as the thing progresses in time and space. The continual progression of a thing results in micro-variations and distinctions because of said differences in the time and space in which it occurs. The sameness of a thing that repeats occurs simultaneously to the little variations that manifests in each instance of its repetition thus manifesting a dualistic quality of being one and many things. Repetition results in spontaneity as the thing just appears, disappears in a relative gap, then just appears again. We only apply order to a series of events after they occur and yet if we withhold the judgement of this applied order we are left with a spontaneity; in another respect order 'just appears' thus necessitating further spontaneity.
Order is assumed but there is no groundings to it other than it being an applied quality that is artificial as it is created as a concept. Things just occur and the evidence of there being an order only occurs when we look at the continuity behind the change. However this continuity can be observed as spontaneous as well considering it just occurs as itself. We say order occurs because 'x leads to y which leads to z' but if reality only appeared as y then x and then z instead we would say it is also just as ordered because that is how it appears. Everything appears as ordered when there is nothing else to compare it to that would imply some other order from which to randomly choose from. Under these terms order is just appearance and appearance not only fades away with change, thus order following with it, but is spontaneous considering it just occurs then disappears.
To say everything requires order is strictly a statement of belief that paradoxically may not be orderly in itself as we cannot observe everything without resulting in broad generalities of being that effectively mean nothing due to infinite applications. To say everything is ordered is to may order meaningless, as it is without compare to other things, and self-contradicting, as it compares only to itself thus is self-dividing. Order just appears and this nature of 'just appearing' necessitates it as being its own opposite (that of disorder).
|
|
