Philosophy as Having Underlying Formalisms is Preordained

LW Was Like a Captain I Knew, Getting the Medal of Honor for Dragging Others Into His "Going Out in a Blaze of Glory" Suicide




Illogical, as are all statements recited to impress intellectual-snob professors. You could say the same thing about Osama bin Laden, a billionaire's son living in caves. But the toxic decadence of these spoiled brats stays with them even when they cease being spoiled.

Update****


Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one, the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

Philosophy relies solely upon a dualism of "definition" and "no definition" where any real definition causes a paradox of something else being undefined, thus necessitating a cyclic nature as an alternation between extremes. This alternation between extremes of clarity and ambiguity is a circularity between particulars and generals.

It is fully represented under a cycle. This cycle is absolute and constant as the maintanance of assertions; all assertions and forms connect and seperate. This assertion is simple.

It is the expression of one assertion under many assertions, where any form of analysis is the formation of one thing into many. Analysis is a variable multiplier and contradicts any form of wholism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. Dually the progress to a particular is a paradoxical manifestation of a general where a particular as composed of many particulars in turn acts as a general. A part directs itself to a whole. In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one, the ambiguous into a lucid. This can be seen in word definition.

Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

Where:

1. The original word both references itself and leads to a new word.

2. The new word leads both to the original word, references itself and leads to a new word.

3. This process repeats in an expanding tautological spiral as a series of rings within rings where each word is a context.

4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as a ring.

The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language it that it manifests under.

This definition applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. A tautology is one thing in a variety of ways.

All tautologies, are spirals by nature.

1. One phenomena expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomena expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomena continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self expressive nature.


Thus the definition of a tautology is grounded in the inversion of one assertion into another.

This definition map exists alongside of ((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C)) as:
((A --> A) --> (B<--> -A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, is expressed.


Under this equation all being represents itself as Recursive/Inversive Contexts. Recursion is the repitition of a phenomenon, inversion as the change from one state into another, and context as the summation of recursion and inversion as a self sustained loop.

1. All assumptions are contexts: (A)(B)(-A)
2. All assumptions are recursive: (A --> A)
3. All assumptions are isomorphic: (A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)****
4. All assumptions are contexts: ((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

****If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

The same occurs numerically where 1-->2 shows the difference of 1 where if 1 is subtracted, -1, 2 reverts back to one again.

As to one and many, first there was only cat then dog occurs resulting in many contexts. 1=Cat. Many (2) = Dog and Cat.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.



This trinitarian nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts,
as one context ( ),

((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

Considering philosophy is definitive by nature, philosophy follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))


It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirely of philosophy summited under a third equation of:

(A)

which states philosophy itself, as a variation of both science and religion, is an assumed context of definition much like science and language. This nature of defintion occurs through the nature of language these three facets of study exist under. The nature of study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed.

In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exists under a trinity of equations that determine its role as both defining exterior sciences/religions/philosophies as well as internally self referencing:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))
(A)

In shorter terms philosophy is both a series of equations and functions that occurs through these equations. These equations are both self referencing and expressed themselves tautologically through further equations. These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).

The laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself. The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is the Munchausseen Trilemma. The original laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:

(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.
(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to R,S,T,....
(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P arr strictly taken without proof.

Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves:

((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of excluded middle.

((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.


The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumption are assumed thus resulting in a triad of identity properties.



1. Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )


All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular: (P-->P)




2. Assumption of Inherent Void {( )}


All assumptions as inverting to another assumption necessitate an inherent emptiness of the assumption. All assumptions as intrinsically empty necessitate an inherent isomorphism where one assumption inverts to many tautological assumptions. All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further assumption, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. An assumption as void negates to an assumption as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

Everytime a assumption progresses to another assumption, the new assumption contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new assumption is not the old context and contains what the prior assumption is not. Thus the new assumption always contains an absence of the old assumption in one respect, due to newness of the assumption, while it contains elements of the old assumption at the same time.

All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive: {P --> (Q <--> -P)}





3. Assumption of Inherent Context {( • )}


All assumptions as recursive and void necessitates all assumptions as contexts that have both one and many meanings: one meaning as underlying many assumptions, many meanings as inverting from one assumption to another.

Assumptions as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each assumption as a center point observes each assumption as circular through recursion. Assumptions as inherently void necessitates all assumptions as functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.

All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars that are not being observed, each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality, is composed of particular which are empty of definition, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context.

All assumptions as variables are therefore contexts. All assumptions, as contexts, are inherently empty self referential loops inverting to other self-referential loops, existing through the point of view of the observer:

{{(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)} --> {(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)}}


Further more the fallacies which act as negative limits to philosophy are identity properties , isomorphically, as referenced to assumptive law 2.

All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies in thus negating the fallacy, in a second respect equivocating the fallacy to a series of negative limits that define an argument by what it is not. For example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not: linear.

Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves, they exist/not exist simultaneously. The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this circularity is a fallacy.

The fallacy dually acts as both a negative limits when applied as themselves, while when applied to themselves are isomorphisms as to what sets the foundations for philosophy (ie the law of circularity applied to itself, as circular, necessitate circularity as a truth value).

The same occurs for truth values where the inversion of truth to falsity, is an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. For example: one point and an infinite number of points appear as the same point.

It is the fallacy of fallacies which necessitate philosophy, at its core being grounded in converging and diverging assumptions stemming from the point of view of the observer. This point of view, transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic.

Abstraction is the manifestation of forms through our rational faculties. Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses. Both abstractions and empircality are manifestation of forms through different dimensions of reality with these dimensions being inversions of the other. We see possible phenomena through the formation of images, imagination, and as such it is an abstraction based upon the projection of empirical forms as abstractions.

A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. The points may be relative point particles, observed empirically, or may be a series of abstract viewpoints. Such thing as an atom may have a given form, as a series of points which summate to a sphere or looping type of shape.

The absense of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field. Take for example a single white point, it is formless and only seen for what it is against a black backdrop. Take away the black back drop and the point is fundamentally a formless abyss. Now if this formless abyss divides, a line between two points occurs as the division of the point. Formless self negates, through double negation, into form. The dualism between the point and boundless field can be observed a synonymous to the particle wave dualism. Pure being, originating from a single point, is pure form as formlessness with form as the convergence and divergence of forms, thus points, necessitating the point as pure movement. The point is the synthesis between form and formless as the origin of both.

All dimensions of reality are composed of forms, it is the alignment of forms, such as the forms developed through abstraction and those that are perceived empirically, which align in such a manner where what is imagined can be physicalized and vice versa.

"Dimension", as defined, is tautological to "form" by nature as a series of complex forms which work together to form a new form. As such, through this nature of definition, we see any philosophical definition as following thr same definition mapping as the words and symbols which form it. Just as the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own, so a dimension is a complex myriad of forms which work together to form a whole. This property of definition is universal.

For example in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to form a whole. Empirically these forms may only exist as a picture. In one dimension the unicorn acts as whole actualized entity, in another dimension it appears only as an image of itself.

The distinction between any set of forms, as dimensions, such as the dichotomy between abstractions and empirically sensed phenomena, occurs by the ability to align through a symmetry. For example a unicorn may exist abstractly but the absense of unicorns empirically, barring symbolism through art, sets a distinction between these dimensions.

All being, as defined consists of forms and dimensions as complex forms. All that exists stems from a singular point with the point being the center of all form. All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by there degrees of seperation from the original point. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image with the image being synonymous to form as both give defintion.

Imagination is the abstract diverging and converging of points to form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. In these respects, however, the physical can be seen as imaginary, that which is given image to, as well. It is this divergence from a single point which allows for one set of forms, be it abstract or physical, to effectively modify but synthesizing through the common source.

Possibility is manifested empirically through the projection of abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension. For example a skyscraper exists as a series of abstractions. The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form, it is formless relative to the skyscraper actually existing. One state, the abstraction, exists as actual form, the other state, the empirical exists as potential form. The form of the skyscraper, existing an an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, as in it is built. The form of one dimension Inverts into another dimension.

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions. In simpler terms, the forms that exist in one dimension over another, sets the distinction. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image, allowing for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions.


The divergence of reason and sense occur through the "Big Bang" and "Principle of Explosion" as formalisms of a single expanding point which diverges into multiple dimensions. This single point transcends both of these principles.

The big bang theory observes all empirical being, condensed into a single point, expand into the variety of forms which are composed of point particles, with the laying out of point particles resulting in the forms. The one point self negated into many.

Dually the principle of explosion replicates this same pattern, all assumptions condensed into a single axiom expanded into the variety of assumptions all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed axiom self negated into many.

In these respects both the big bang and principle of explosion occur through the process of self-negation and as such are inherently two dimensions, one abstract and one physical, resulting in the same phenomena.

These phenomena, both empirical contexts and abstract contexts are connected by a single point that ties the foundations of a priori and a posteriori phenomenon as one.

This results in the "void sequence" which can be proven through a series of lines alternating into new lines. The point represents the original point the empirical and abstract phenomena originate from, the line as the resulting form.

All phenomena result from void voiding itself into form, with form voiding itself into many forms.
Logically this sequence is a result of the Principle Explosion, where from contradiction anything results, empirically this sequence is a result of the Big Bang, where from nothingness everything results.

Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0 value points into the number line:

(0-->0)-->1,-1

**** 1= .______. --->
**** -1= <--- .______.


(1-->1)--> (2, 1/2, -2, -1/2)

*** 2= .____.____. --->
*** 1/2 = .____. --->
*** -2 <--- .____.____.
*** -1/2 <--- .____.


(1-->2)--> (3, 1/3, -3, -1/3)
*** 3 .____.____.____. --->
*** 1/3 .____. --->
*** -3 <--- .____.____.____.
*** -1/3 <--- .____.





Logically this sequence occurs from an empty assumption into variables:

(• --> •) --> A, -A


(A-->A) --> (B, A/B, -A/B, -B)

(A-->B) --> (C, A/C, -A/C, -C)


Empirically this sequence occurs from one set of qualities into another:

Mammal is Cat
(A-->B)

Mammal is Cat is Wild Cat
(A-->B)-->C

Mammal is Cat is Wild Cat as Fraction of Mammal
(A-->B)-->A/C

Mammal is Cat is Not Wild Cat (ie wild cat is wild cat, cat may be something else rather than wild)
(A-->B)--> -C

Mammal is Cat is not cat is fraction of mammal (ie cat may be drawing and as such is not mammal)
(A-->B) ---> -A/C


Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, everything stems from the divergence and reconvergence of a point through which all empirical and abstract being originates. This evolution and involution of points is a multidimensional event creating and recreating all phenomena ranging from the movements of point particles to points of awareness.

This point is both abstract and empirical thus transcending a priori and a posteriori knowledge and can be reflected through the question: "Does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

This is further reflected in the respect that physics breaks down to the interactions of point particles, math with the quantification of points, psychology with points of view. Everything is grounded in the forms created by the convergence/divergence of point space; the Big Bang and Principle of explosion, through the "point", is in a state of superpositioning where it exists in many states at once.

This manifestation of multiple states at once necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. If a law is to be universal it must stem across all abstract and empirical realities, thus the law must have a universal form. It is this superimposed form which necessitates being as multiple dimensions glued together to form a whole.

The continual repitition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; any connection of forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction as pure movement be it an empirical or abstract form.

The "explosion" of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion in logic exists at multiple states where one explosion is superimposed on top of another. With the explosion of one phenomenon comes the entropy/negentropy of another as the cycling of forms, be it abstract or physical. A sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form. For example a series of stones expands into the thought of a castle, and the thought of a castle contracts into the actual castle itself.

All forms are superimposed upon other forms, just like raindrops are collected and reformed as a stream through the corner of a roof top, so all forms collect and redirect other forms into new forms. The abstraction of castle directs itself into an actual castle. What reality consists of is layered forms directing eachother through eachother where what is imagined, ie given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form.

The nature of assumption relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form. The formless state of one phenomena, sand for example, is imprinted by another form, a rock, where reality becomes self assuming as the continually imprinting and re imprinting of forms.

To recieve defintion occurs through an isomorphism. The formless state repeats the definition of what is imprinted upon it as an inversion of what projects onto it.

Take sand for example, it takes the inverse imprinting of the rock and the rock, as being worn down by the sand, is inversely imprinted by it.

The same occurs where the psyche is imprinted by images through which it assumes. The psyche as a blank slate through absense of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then reprojects them.

This occurs with the act of counting where one phenomena is inverted into another.

1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomenon into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomenon.

2. Basic division starts with counting, basic counting starts with forms, one basic form for reality is the line. This is inherent within the act of counting.

3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of counting

4. The inversion of one line (or line segment considering the math community views each differently) into two lines is the inversion of one form into many forms.

5. This division occurs through the application of a 0d point. The 0d point is formless and can be considered "void". It is purely assumed, with all assumption not only being void but fundamentally beginning with void considering the "dot" is purely assumed.

6. One form Inverts to many forms through "voiding" of unity. This voiding of unity results it inverting into multiple unities. We see this with the voiding of one line resulting in many lines which still individually are lines.

7. Thus formlessness, as void, negates form into forms but form always exists.

8. Void thus is nothing in itself, it cannot be observed as nothing is "there" to observe. All we can see are multiple states. Using a glass of water and air as example: half is full of water, half is full of air. The dividing line in the middle observes the inversion of one substance (air or water) into another substance (respectively water or air).

9. Void as formless, is thus indefinite. It cannot be defined much like infinity cannot be defined. Thus it is always voiding itself. The voiding of void is form, as Nothingness is not only a self negating concept that creates a concept of "no-thing" but also perpetually negates form as well.

10. So void voids itself because is not really there, as "form". This may sound like a play on words, but step back and think about it. Infinite(void) 0d points(void) result in the "line".

11. This form is thus infinite as well until it is voided into multiple forms in which case it becomes finite. One line is indefinite, considering the voiding of void is indefinite, until the form is voided into multiple forms. This continual division of lines simultaneously results in the continual multiplication of lines.

12. So to summarize:

A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line.

B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voids into multiple lines.

C. The continual manifestation of forms results in one set of forms. The line is composed of infinite lines as one set.




It is this dualism between the abstraction and physical that underlies a common middle context of "form" which binds reality together.

Does a house gain structure through the materials or the form? It is the form which binds the materials together with space acting as the glue which holds the house together. The house exists because of rectangles and triangles, not because of the wooden beams. Matter is shape.

The same applies to a logical argument, does an argument gain structure through propositions or form? It is the form which binds the propositions together. The argument exists because of linearism, circularity and the point of awareness it represents.

Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

Being is a series of movements within movements, with each movement existing as a timezone. Water dripping from a roof is the number of lengths a particle revolves as a series of circumference that unfurl into a line. Stated in simpler terms a second is a series of revolutions of any particle with the summation of these circumferance unraveling into a series of lines. What we consider as movements is multiple lengths of space forming ratios. These same ratios which form lines are the same linear ratios where a word, as a series of definitions, is composed of a further series of progressive definitions. One set of progressive definitions exists inside of another.

Time is a series of linear forms existing within linear forms, and as such is a ratios of spaces. It is this nature of spaces within spaces that time is composed of forms which supercede it.

All movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality. The same occurs through reasoning, an argument exists because it is linear or circular. Physically, phenomena are grounded in the reoccurrence of shapes.

Space has isomorphic shape through matter.

Take for example a rectangle: □

Inversely the shape which space takes through the rectangle is: ■

Space takes form through shape. Shape and space is inseperable. What we understand of reality is forms which exist through curvature and this curvature exists recursively and isomorphically.

It is this replication of phenomena that deem its truth value as something is deemed real based upon its ability to replicate across time; this in itself is a "form" as the recursion of boundaries result in a symmetry as order. For example a car making a zigzag is the repetition of alternating lines from the perspective of a larger timezone.


Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness under the expansion and contraction of form. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

This origin of being, represented from the omnipresent point symbolizes the seed of intelligence as the basic primordial symbol representing the origin of all things. All symbols and acts of quantification and qualification begin with the expression of the dot which gain there origin beginning with a single point in space.

The circle is a symbol of maintenance representing the repetition of phenomena that gives precedence to order. That which repeats exists through a symmetry across time and space much like a habit that gives identity. We deem something as true based upon its ability to replicate.

Intelligence is derived from pattern recognition/application. The problem occurs that intelligence can be rooted in a strictly linear progressive manner of interpretation as one symbol projects to another at the expense of meaning, thus with too much knowledge nothing is known. Under these terms all patterns converge and diverge from a point.

Reality is fundamentally formless, under the point, as all images are merely "formlessness" given limit. This occurence of the point, as formless, dividing into form and redividing into further forms accounts for the confusion of complexity through a myriad of images which stifle any true thought under the gravity of symbols each with their own respective interpretations.

Truth is existence with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being. This centerpoint can be called "God", with the circumferance being the range of being which extends from and through the "Creator".

The convergence and divergence of points (of view) within philosophy, from a single point (of awareness) gives a deeper analysis to the nature of definition

Just like 1 point takes the same form as infinite points, so defintion takes the same manner in reasoning. One assumption is broken down into so many assumptions, that proof begins to take the same form as the original assertion thus becoming an assertion again.

The failure of definition in philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. The failure in acknowledging principles as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole which regresses back to the paradoxical "point" of it, "the point".

Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This couldn't be more false, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where perspective, through assumption, is first and foremost.

The continual regression of assumptions leads to all facts broken down exist as atomic facts, points of observation reduced to further points of observation. The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction as the point of awareness, as a boundless formless space, is the recursion of one point of view into a point particle or atomic fact.

This recursion of points, and inversion from one state, abstract or empirical, necessitates that when determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective. Paradoxically there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner, this leaving inversion through isomorphism and recursion as universal principles embodied through an ever present context of awareness.

In shorter terms is the convergence and divergence of phenomena into points that necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Abstractions and empirical senses are intuitively directed to a center point continuously.

Thus the most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed" with the point being the empty context through which we observe reality under a continual imprinting.

It is the assumption and resumption of patents that reflect comprehensibiluty as the ability to connect assumed patterns through prior patterns we assumed. Yet comprehensibilty is the prerequisite to incomprehensibility. What is well defined and clear is made so in order to break the definition down into something unclear and vague. Clarity is unity, multiplicity is vagueness. The assumption of one set of patterns Inverts into a series of newer patterns under the inversive nature of observation through the point of awareness. The formless nature of the point inverts our set of forms into another.

In making terms simple they become complicated. In making things complicated they become simple. The act of definition is thus grounded in a revolution between one and many terms where something is broken apart and put back together. Philosophy and science are thus alchemical, this alchemy is the convergence and divergence of points.

It is the creation and recreation of definitions which causes philosophy to crumble under the gravity of terms alone. What defined one assumption through another eventually becomes a series of assumptions which causes the meaning of the original assumption to crumble.

Principles are the summation of relations between parts. Under this definition all word creation, as the summation of relations between words, differs little from principle creation as both principles and words are the application of boundary to a previously formless phenomenon.

There is no principle defining how to make principles, beyond this aforementioned alchemy of thought. Principle creation is not subject to any principle, thus what we understand as a principle is a group assertion or the projection of some self reflected thought. It is the alignment as symmetry of subjective states under a recursive common bond.


It is the alternation between converging and diverging forms that philosophy lies within a dualism between obscurity and lucidity under this alternation between one and many. It is through this dualism that obscurity and lucidity synthesize into "as is-ness". At best philosophy, and the sciences by proxy, can provide definition that is strictly assumed with this assumptions being the summation of forms into a single point as a perspective or empirical particle.

A series of phenomena are defined within a phenomenon with this summation being a self-referential loop through what it contains. Rationality is fundamental a spiral represented by loop creation. Under these terms all being is connected by context alone.

Philosophy under it's own terms is always problematic as it deals with the continual definition and redefinition of assumptions which occur in cycles. At best philosophy becomes the art of painting pictures with words and as such is an art as much as a science.

The nature of paradox within philosophy again necessitates isomorphism as a general principle: all thesis' result in a symmetrical antithesis as an inversion of the thesis. The repitition of isomorphism, between thesis and antithesis, again necessitates a second universal principle of recursion within philosophy.

The isomorphism between thesis and antithesis, in philosophy, and this reptition as recursion, necessitates a third principle of philosophy being the creation of empty loops as contexts. Philosophy is context creation as asserted loops which invert to further loops.

These loops as contexts, as a universal phenomena, breaks down to a hyper primitive underlying logic which can mean just about anything due to a problem of syntax. This looping begins within basic arithmetic but reflects elsewhere. For example:

All arithmetic foundations are tautological and circular:

1. The subtraction of subtraction is addition through double negation.

(-1-1=-2)=(-1+-1=-2)



2. Division is further the subtraction of subtraction, as the number of times x may be subtracted until point zero is reached.

(6/3=2) = (6-3-3=0)



3. The addition of addition is the number of times x may be added to another.

(3×2=6) = (2+2+2=6)

The only syntax rule is a circularity, yet syntax rules would require a regress outside the system leading to a variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem. The rules would have to be self referencing, and a context within context observes this, thus the framework would have to be descriptive by nature.

As self referencing it would be subject to double positives and double negative simultaneously.

Double negatives are the foundation for all math and logic.

-1-1=-2 results in the first act of addition where addition results from self reference. Addition is the subtraction of subtraction.

(-P --> -P) --> (P-->P) --> (Q --> (-P --> -P))... occurs simultaneously in logic.

Recursion of negatives is the foundation of math and logic.

Its truth value lies in is descriptive properties.

Dually double positives occur: The repitition of positives necessitates a negative.

Example:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)

If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts. Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil".

Good in a state of multiple degrees shows Good as being intrinsically negated, thus a positive (or thesis) as directed towards (tending to, necessitating, equivalent to, if and only if, etc.) another positive (thesis) results in its antithesis.

This occurs within the basic number line as well.

1 and 1 have 0 distance between them...this is the first thesis/thesis as antithesis.

1 and 1 necessitate 0 when counting it on a number line.

1 and 2 have one line between them where this number is -1 if the numbers are to be equal. The variation of 1 into 2 necessitates 2 is a grade of 1 as it is composed of 1...it is a fragment of 1 strictly by observing a number line as multiple 1 line segments. The difference between a positive 1 and a positive 2 is negative one.

The same occurs for the difference between a positive 1 and positive 3...a negative two.

The same occurs for 3 and 7...-4

So a positive and a positive, requires a variation of the original positive into grades, with the grades as different due to a seperation necessitating antithetical or negative elements.

An example using the number line would be you have 3 progressing to 7. 7 is a variation of 1, thus when it goes from 7 to 1 (right to left just like the negative number line) you have -4 as superpositioned within the positive number line.

It is this nature of regressive contexts that a primative underlying logic occurs. Considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be:

"( )" for "context"
"{ }" for "context of contexts"
"[ ]" for "transitional contexf"
"/" "modality of context"
"-->" for "transition of one context to another"
"•" as the "fundamental variable"


A simple statement such as "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:

{(C)[E-->](F/C)}-->{(W)[B-->](C/F)}

Or "The sky is blue"
(S)-->(B)


Or for math

1+2=3
{+1-->(+1-->+1)}-->+3

4÷2=2
(+4/+2) --> +2




All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature; therefore would be expressed as modalities as all modalities are fractions and fractals:

{({(In)(Im)}/A) [S-->] (N/P)} [E-->] (M)[A-->]{(Fn)(Fl)}

"The cat eating the food implies the cat is hungry"
{(C/E)(F)}/(C/H)

The logic is primitive yet seems to represent the basic underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break it down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry. This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line:

(C)[[A-->]J](B)


Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is:

If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation.

Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording.

Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not.

The same applies to any formal system of logic, it is contradictory by it's own nature of description but the formal system still exists. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.

The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic, and reality by default.

The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying centerpoint from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it. Any higher language would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing context again.

In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it.The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad as a symbol ⊙ with all grammar being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal.

From a perspective of temporality all movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality.

This applies to the foundation of logic as well.

Form is the glue of being derived from point space, all phenomenon are the expansion and contraction of a point with the point representing the height of pure form in one respect, pure formlessness in another. The point is the underlying median which holds reality together. Relative to logic this point is best represented through the assumption as a point of view.



Assumption = •
Continuum of assumptions = --->
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. •
2. • ---> •
3. •⊙•
4. (•)•
5. (• ---> •)• ---> (•⊙•)•
6. (• ---> •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•
7. ((•)•)•
8. (--->)•
9. ((--->)• ---> (--->)•)•
10. (⊙)•
11. ((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•
12. •

1. This is an assumption.

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption.

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself.

4. This is an assumption of assumption.

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

7. This is progressive assumption.

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed.

9. Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive.

10. This assumption of multiple progression is circular and is assumed.

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption.

12. This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion. It is both complete and incomplete as assumed.


In mapping logic at it most basic form, logic becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything with this meaning being grounded in form alone.
This form, as variables by nature point to the paradox as to what a variable is and is not.


1. All assumptions are variables, as they represent general statements.

2. A cat is a variable, as it is composed of other types of cats. So is a tree. So is the word "word".

3. If I assume an experience I assume a generalized state of things (sensations, emotions, thoughts) that are composed of particulars that are not being observed. For example the experience of touching a table does not take into account how it was formed, the actual atomic movements or its place in the future...these assumptions are strictly images produced based upon the connection of prior experiences which are assumed.

4. All logical symbols, as such, act as variables. They are composed of other symbols and compose other symbols. They are generalities of transition, with each symbol as fundamentally empty being transitory to another symbol.

5. Each variable as a generality, is a particular which composes another generalized state, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. This necessitates it as a function of transition to another variable, thus all variables are inversive by nature.

For example, +1 is a generality. However it is a particular which composes +1+1=2, +1+2=3, +2+3=+5...etc. Thus it is a transitive state in itself considering it is always inverting from one state to another. +1 is always transitioning into more complex variations of itself, thus is continually inversive from one state to another.

6. Each variable as a particular, is a generality which exists in multiple states and is repeated, thus each variable is strictly is an inherent middle as underlying context of another context. This necessitates is as a form of transition to another variable, thus all variables are recursive by nature.

For example, +1 as a particular is a generality as it is composed of +10 - 9, +10.1 - 9,...etc. It is composed of an infinite number of particulars and as such is an underlying form of many transitive states. +1 is always present as an underlying form of continuity as a general state due to its repetition.

7. All assumptions as both form and functions are inherently variables that necessitate an underlying order that manifests spontaneously and as random through a continual variation of the same thing. Logic is spontaneous as it is grounded in assumptions.

Statements such as A=A or 1+1=2 are fundamentally random, but are ordered as self referencing contexts through recurssion.

A=A can mean anything, with "A" = "Anything" necessitating all phenomena are subject to equivocation....

....while 1+1=2 being the quantifying of any phenomena such as a dot, to a dolphin-hippomatus-turtle hybrid with fire breathing cannons coming out of it fingers, to oranges, to the number of words in a sentence.

8. Logic and math are thus always indefinite and definite at the same time as all variables are simultaneously generals and particulates. This same nature applies to philosophy where any answer is best defined "as is".


It is the nature of the dualism between general and particulate, vagueness and clarity, where philosophy's "as is-ness", expressed through the tautology, where the geometric mapping of tautologies as linear strings undergo a deeper meta circularity

All progressive tautologies result in a variable that represents the tautology itself.

A-->B(A-->A)-->C(A-->A-->A)-->...--> -A(A-->A-->A-->A...)

Where:

-A = (A-->B-->C-->...-->-A) = (A-->A-->A-->A-->A...)

Thus A-->-A

Looping of the variable into a tautology back into a variable as a new tautology necessitates each variable is both a string and atomic fact.

(A-->B-->C-->...-->-A)-->A1
(A1-->A2 --> A3 --> ...--> -A1) --> B1
(B1 --> B2 --> B3 -->...--> -B1) --> C1


This looping between the variable of the tautology and the tautology as a variable summate philosophy as purely context manipulation where philosophy itself is a context, amidst the science/religions and philosophies best represented as "(A)" in reference to the primary equations presented earlier. Under these terms, all variables as contexts are center points for all variables.

Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation:

A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )


B) 1=2
(1(0)) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
(0(0)) = 1( )1( )




C) 2=3
((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )


c) 0=3
((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c1) 1 = 3
(3) = 1( )


D) 4=3
((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )

d) 0=4
((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

d1) 1=4
(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4
((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context.

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise.


Everything reduced to context, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing.

When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules, other than pure geometric forms underlying all abstract and empirical being, for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner. In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle.

Update****


Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one, the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

Philosophy is the manifestation of "isms", through the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These "isms" represent the general state of a series of particulars. It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of dualisms, with no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental a fundamental rule.

This dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiring thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic answers as well. Philosophy's application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, necessitates it as fundamentally undefined as the application of dichotomies can be represented under a continuum. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of a dichotomy. In simpler terms the dichotomy is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism which determines definition as definition itself. Even the application of dichotomy and isomorphism as key principles creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism. Philosophy begins with a tension of quality and quantity as a thesis and antithesis. The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two forms around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. The beginning of quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables within the thesis into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities follow this same nature respectively.

This tautology can be represented, under the variables (A--> (B<-->-A)) or the quantities of (1-->(2<--->-1)) repsectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness. In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another state of thesis and antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing set of forms, with these forms occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1, and 1 inverts to 2. An empty assumption Inverts to a an actual context, and this context Inverts to another context. 2 maintains a difference of 1, resulting in 1 forming -1 as an antithesis, and A maintains a difference from B as -A, resulting in A forming -A as an antithesis.

Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this being a dichotomy as well.


The synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition by nature in which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. The application of a percieved formless, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it through the creation of a new term. This creation of a new term makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where tautology of definition is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.

Philosophy relies solely upon a dualism of "definition" and "no definition" where any real definition causes a paradox of something else being undefined, thus necessitating a cyclic nature as an alternation between extremes. This alternation between extremes of clarity and ambiguity is a circularity between particulars and generals.

It is fully represented under a cycle. This cycle is absolute and constant as the maintanance of assertions; all assertions and forms connect and seperate. This assertion is simple.

It is the expression of one assertion under many assertions, where any form of analysis is the formation of one thing into many. Analysis is a variable multiplier and contradicts any form of wholism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. Dually the progress to a particular is a paradoxical manifestation of a general where a particular as composed of many particulars in turn acts as a general. A part directs itself to a whole. In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one, the ambiguous into a lucid. This can be seen in word definition.

Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

Where:

1. The original word both references itself and leads to a new word.

2. The new word leads both to the original word, references itself and leads to a new word.

3. This process repeats in an expanding tautological spiral as a series of rings within rings where each word is a context.

4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as a ring.

The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language it that it manifests under.

This definition applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. A tautology is one thing in a variety of ways.

All tautologies, are spirals by nature.

1. One phenomena expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomena expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomena continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self expressive nature.


Thus the definition of a tautology is grounded in the inversion of one assertion into another.

This definition map exists alongside of ((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C)) as:
((A --> A) --> (B<--> -A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, is expressed.


Under this equation all being represents itself as Recursive/Inversive Contexts. Recursion is the repitition of a phenomenon, inversion as the change from one state into another, and context as the summation of recursion and inversion as a self sustained loop.

1. All assumptions are contexts: (A)(B)(-A)
2. All assumptions are recursive: (A --> A)
3. All assumptions are isomorphic: (A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)****
4. All assumptions are contexts: ((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

****If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

The same occurs numerically where 1-->2 shows the difference of 1 where if 1 is subtracted, -1, 2 reverts back to one again.

As to one and many, first there was only cat then dog occurs resulting in many contexts. 1=Cat. Many (2) = Dog and Cat.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.



This trinitarian nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts,
as one context ( ),

((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

Considering philosophy is definitive by nature, philosophy follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))


It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirely of philosophy summited under a third equation of:

(A)

which states philosophy itself, as a variation of both science and religion, is an assumed context of definition much like science and language. This nature of defintion occurs through the nature of language these three facets of study exist under. The nature of study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed.

In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exists under a trinity of equations that determine its role as both defining exterior sciences/religions/philosophies as well as internally self referencing:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))
(A)

In shorter terms philosophy is both a series of equations and functions that occurs through these equations. These equations are both self referencing and expressed themselves tautologically through further equations. These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).

The laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself. The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is the Munchausseen Trilemma. The original laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:

(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.
(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to R,S,T,....
(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P arr strictly taken without proof.

Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves:

((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of excluded middle.

((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.


The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumption are assumed thus resulting in a triad of identity properties.



1. Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )


All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular: (P-->P)




2. Assumption of Inherent Void {( )}


All assumptions as inverting to another assumption necessitate an inherent emptiness of the assumption. All assumptions as intrinsically empty necessitate an inherent isomorphism where one assumption inverts to many tautological assumptions. All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further assumption, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. An assumption as void negates to an assumption as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

Everytime a assumption progresses to another assumption, the new assumption contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new assumption is not the old context and contains what the prior assumption is not. Thus the new assumption always contains an absence of the old assumption in one respect, due to newness of the assumption, while it contains elements of the old assumption at the same time. Isomorphism breaks down to three different degrees as a triad of dualisms.


1. Nothing into Being: (• --> A)
2. Thetical Being into Antithetical Being: (A --> -A)
3. "Nothing into Being" into "Thetical Being into Antithetical Being": (• --> A) --> (A-->-A)

All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive: {P --> (Q <--> -P)}





3. Assumption of Inherent Context {( • )}


All assumptions as recursive and void necessitates all assumptions as contexts that have both one and many meanings: one meaning as underlying many assumptions, many meanings as inverting from one assumption to another.

Assumptions as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each assumption as a center point observes each assumption as circular through recursion. Assumptions as inherently void necessitates all assumptions as functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.

All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars that are not being observed, each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality, is composed of particular which are empty of definition, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context.

All assumptions as variables are therefore contexts. All assumptions, as contexts, are inherently empty self referential loops inverting to other self-referential loops, existing through the point of view of the observer:

{{(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)} --> {(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)}}


Further more the fallacies which act as negative limits to philosophy are identity properties , isomorphically, as referenced to assumptive law 2.

All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies in thus negating the fallacy, in a second respect equivocating the fallacy to a series of negative limits that define an argument by what it is not. For example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not: linear.

Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves, they exist/not exist simultaneously. The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this circularity is a fallacy.

The fallacy dually acts as both a negative limits when applied as themselves, while when applied to themselves are isomorphisms as to what sets the foundations for philosophy (ie the law of circularity applied to itself, as circular, necessitate circularity as a truth value).

The same occurs for truth values where the inversion of truth to falsity, is an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. For example: one point and an infinite number of points appear as the same point.

It is the fallacy of fallacies which necessitate philosophy, at its core being grounded in converging and diverging assumptions stemming from the point of view of the observer. This point of view, transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic.

Abstraction is the manifestation of forms through our rational faculties. Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses. Both abstractions and empircality are manifestation of forms through different dimensions of reality with these dimensions being inversions of the other. We see possible phenomena through the formation of images, imagination, and as such it is an abstraction based upon the projection of empirical forms as abstractions.

A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. The points may be relative point particles, observed empirically, or may be a series of abstract viewpoints. Such thing as an atom may have a given form, as a series of points which summate to a sphere or looping type of shape.

The absense of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field. Take for example a single white point, it is formless and only seen for what it is against a black backdrop. Take away the black back drop and the point is fundamentally a formless abyss. Now if this formless abyss divides, a line between two points occurs as the division of the point. Formless self negates, through double negation, into form. The dualism between the point and boundless field can be observed a synonymous to the particle wave dualism. Pure being, originating from a single point, is pure form as formlessness with form as the convergence and divergence of forms, thus points, necessitating the point as pure movement. The point is the synthesis between form and formless as the origin of both.

All dimensions of reality are composed of forms, it is the alignment of forms, such as the forms developed through abstraction and those that are perceived empirically, which align in such a manner where what is imagined can be physicalized and vice versa.

"Dimension", as defined, is tautological to "form" by nature as a series of complex forms which work together to form a new form. As such, through this nature of definition, we see any philosophical definition as following thr same definition mapping as the words and symbols which form it. Just as the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own, so a dimension is a complex myriad of forms which work together to form a whole. This property of definition is universal.

For example in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to form a whole. Empirically these forms may only exist as a picture. In one dimension the unicorn acts as whole actualized entity, in another dimension it appears only as an image of itself.

The distinction between any set of forms, as dimensions, such as the dichotomy between abstractions and empirically sensed phenomena, occurs by the ability to align through a symmetry. For example a unicorn may exist abstractly but the absense of unicorns empirically, barring symbolism through art, sets a distinction between these dimensions.

All being, as defined consists of forms and dimensions as complex forms. All that exists stems from a singular point with the point being the center of all form. All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by there degrees of seperation from the original point. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image with the image being synonymous to form as both give defintion.

Imagination is the abstract diverging and converging of points to form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. In these respects, however, the physical can be seen as imaginary, that which is given image to, as well. It is this divergence from a single point which allows for one set of forms, be it abstract or physical, to effectively modify but synthesizing through the common source.

Possibility is manifested empirically through the projection of abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension. For example a skyscraper exists as a series of abstractions. The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form, it is formless relative to the skyscraper actually existing. One state, the abstraction, exists as actual form, the other state, the empirical exists as potential form. The form of the skyscraper, existing an an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, as in it is built. The form of one dimension Inverts into another dimension.

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions. In simpler terms, the forms that exist in one dimension over another, sets the distinction. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image, allowing for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions.


The divergence of reason and sense occur through the "Big Bang" and "Principle of Explosion" as formalisms of a single expanding point which diverges into multiple dimensions. This single point transcends both of these principles.

The big bang theory observes all empirical being, condensed into a single point, expand into the variety of forms which are composed of point particles, with the laying out of point particles resulting in the forms. The one point self negated into many.

Dually the principle of explosion replicates this same pattern, all assumptions condensed into a single axiom expanded into the variety of assumptions all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed axiom self negated into many.

In these respects both the big bang and principle of explosion occur through the process of self-negation and as such are inherently two dimensions, one abstract and one physical, resulting in the same phenomena.

These phenomena, both empirical contexts and abstract contexts are connected by a single point that ties the foundations of a priori and a posteriori phenomenon as one.

This results in the "void sequence" which can be proven through a series of lines alternating into new lines. The point represents the original point the empirical and abstract phenomena originate from, the line as the resulting form.

All phenomena result from void voiding itself into form, with form voiding itself into many forms.
Logically this sequence is a result of the Principle Explosion, where from contradiction anything results, empirically this sequence is a result of the Big Bang, where from nothingness everything results.

Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0 value points into the number line:

(0-->0)-->1,-1

**** 1= .______. --->
**** -1= <--- .______.


(1-->1)--> (2, 1/2, -2, -1/2)

*** 2= .____.____. --->
*** 1/2 = .____. --->
*** -2 <--- .____.____.
*** -1/2 <--- .____.


(1-->2)--> (3, 1/3, -3, -1/3)
*** 3 .____.____.____. --->
*** 1/3 .____. --->
*** -3 <--- .____.____.____.
*** -1/3 <--- .____.





Logically this sequence occurs from an empty assumption into variables:

(• --> •) --> A, -A


(A-->A) --> (B, A/B, -A/B, -B)

(A-->B) --> (C, A/C, -A/C, -C)


Empirically this sequence occurs from one set of qualities into another:

Mammal is Cat
(A-->B)

Mammal is Cat is Wild Cat
(A-->B)-->C

Mammal is Cat is Wild Cat as Fraction of Mammal
(A-->B)-->A/C

Mammal is Cat is Not Wild Cat (ie wild cat is wild cat, cat may be something else rather than wild)
(A-->B)--> -C

Mammal is Cat is not cat is fraction of mammal (ie cat may be drawing and as such is not mammal)
(A-->B) ---> -A/C


Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, everything stems from the divergence and reconvergence of a point through which all empirical and abstract being originates. This evolution and involution of points is a multidimensional event creating and recreating all phenomena ranging from the movements of point particles to points of awareness.

This point is both abstract and empirical thus transcending a priori and a posteriori knowledge and can be reflected through the question: "Does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

This is further reflected in the respect that physics breaks down to the interactions of point particles, math with the quantification of points, psychology with points of view. Everything is grounded in the forms created by the convergence/divergence of point space; the Big Bang and Principle of explosion, through the "point", is in a state of superpositioning where it exists in many states at once.

This manifestation of multiple states at once necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. If a law is to be universal it must stem across all abstract and empirical realities, thus the law must have a universal form. It is this superimposed form which necessitates being as multiple dimensions glued together to form a whole.

The continual repitition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; any connection of forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction as pure movement be it an empirical or abstract form.

The "explosion" of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion in logic exists at multiple states where one explosion is superimposed on top of another. With the explosion of one phenomenon comes the entropy/negentropy of another as the cycling of forms, be it abstract or physical. A sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form. For example a series of stones expands into the thought of a castle, and the thought of a castle contracts into the actual castle itself.

All forms are superimposed upon other forms, just like raindrops are collected and reformed as a stream through the corner of a roof top, so all forms collect and redirect other forms into new forms. The abstraction of castle directs itself into an actual castle. What reality consists of is layered forms directing eachother through eachother where what is imagined, ie given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form.

The nature of assumption relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form. The formless state of one phenomena, sand for example, is imprinted by another form, a rock, where reality becomes self assuming as the continually imprinting and re imprinting of forms.

To recieve defintion occurs through an isomorphism. The formless state repeats the definition of what is imprinted upon it as an inversion of what projects onto it.

Take sand for example, it takes the inverse imprinting of the rock and the rock, as being worn down by the sand, is inversely imprinted by it.

The same occurs where the psyche is imprinted by images through which it assumes. The psyche as a blank slate through absense of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then reprojects them.

This occurs with the act of counting where one phenomena is inverted into another.

1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomenon into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomenon.

2. Basic division starts with counting, basic counting starts with forms, one basic form for reality is the line. This is inherent within the act of counting.

3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of counting

4. The inversion of one line (or line segment considering the math community views each differently) into two lines is the inversion of one form into many forms.

5. This division occurs through the application of a 0d point. The 0d point is formless and can be considered "void". It is purely assumed, with all assumption not only being void but fundamentally beginning with void considering the "dot" is purely assumed.

6. One form Inverts to many forms through "voiding" of unity. This voiding of unity results it inverting into multiple unities. We see this with the voiding of one line resulting in many lines which still individually are lines.

7. Thus formlessness, as void, negates form into forms but form always exists.

8. Void thus is nothing in itself, it cannot be observed as nothing is "there" to observe. All we can see are multiple states. Using a glass of water and air as example: half is full of water, half is full of air. The dividing line in the middle observes the inversion of one substance (air or water) into another substance (respectively water or air).

9. Void as formless, is thus indefinite. It cannot be defined much like infinity cannot be defined. Thus it is always voiding itself. The voiding of void is form, as Nothingness is not only a self negating concept that creates a concept of "no-thing" but also perpetually negates form as well.

10. So void voids itself because is not really there, as "form". This may sound like a play on words, but step back and think about it. Infinite(void) 0d points(void) result in the "line".

11. This form is thus infinite as well until it is voided into multiple forms in which case it becomes finite. One line is indefinite, considering the voiding of void is indefinite, until the form is voided into multiple forms. This continual division of lines simultaneously results in the continual multiplication of lines.

12. So to summarize:

A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line.

B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voids into multiple lines.

C. The continual manifestation of forms results in one set of forms. The line is composed of infinite lines as one set.




It is this dualism between the abstraction and physical that underlies a common middle context of "form" which binds reality together.

Does a house gain structure through the materials or the form? It is the form which binds the materials together with space acting as the glue which holds the house together. The house exists because of rectangles and triangles, not because of the wooden beams. Matter is shape.

The same applies to a logical argument, does an argument gain structure through propositions or form? It is the form which binds the propositions together. The argument exists because of linearism, circularity and the point of awareness it represents.

Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

Being is a series of movements within movements, with each movement existing as a timezone. Water dripping from a roof is the number of lengths a particle revolves as a series of circumference that unfurl into a line. Stated in simpler terms a second is a series of revolutions of any particle with the summation of these circumferance unraveling into a series of lines. What we consider as movements is multiple lengths of space forming ratios. These same ratios which form lines are the same linear ratios where a word, as a series of definitions, is composed of a further series of progressive definitions. One set of progressive definitions exists inside of another.

Time is a series of linear forms existing within linear forms, and as such is a ratios of spaces. It is this nature of spaces within spaces that time is composed of forms which supercede it.

All movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality. The same occurs through reasoning, an argument exists because it is linear or circular. Physically, phenomena are grounded in the reoccurrence of shapes.

Space has isomorphic shape through matter.

Take for example a rectangle: □

Inversely the shape which space takes through the rectangle is: ■

Space takes form through shape. Shape and space is inseperable. What we understand of reality is forms which exist through curvature and this curvature exists recursively and isomorphically.

It is this replication of phenomena that deem its truth value as something is deemed real based upon its ability to replicate across time; this in itself is a "form" as the recursion of boundaries result in a symmetry as order. For example a car making a zigzag is the repetition of alternating lines from the perspective of a larger timezone.


Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness under the expansion and contraction of form. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

This origin of being, represented from the omnipresent point symbolizes the seed of intelligence as the basic primordial symbol representing the origin of all things. All symbols and acts of quantification and qualification begin with the expression of the dot which gain there origin beginning with a single point in space.

The circle is a symbol of maintenance representing the repetition of phenomena that gives precedence to order. That which repeats exists through a symmetry across time and space much like a habit that gives identity. We deem something as true based upon its ability to replicate.

Intelligence is derived from pattern recognition/application. The problem occurs that intelligence can be rooted in a strictly linear progressive manner of interpretation as one symbol projects to another at the expense of meaning, thus with too much knowledge nothing is known. Under these terms all patterns converge and diverge from a point.

Reality is fundamentally formless, under the point, as all images are merely "formlessness" given limit. This occurence of the point, as formless, dividing into form and redividing into further forms accounts for the confusion of complexity through a myriad of images which stifle any true thought under the gravity of symbols each with their own respective interpretations.

Truth is existence with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being. This centerpoint can be called "God", with the circumferance being the range of being which extends from and through the "Creator".

The convergence and divergence of points (of view) within philosophy, from a single point (of awareness) gives a deeper analysis to the nature of definition

Just like 1 point takes the same form as infinite points, so defintion takes the same manner in reasoning. One assumption is broken down into so many assumptions, that proof begins to take the same form as the original assertion thus becoming an assertion again.

The failure of definition in philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. The failure in acknowledging principles as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole which regresses back to the paradoxical "point" of it, "the point".

Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This couldn't be more false, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where perspective, through assumption, is first and foremost.

The continual regression of assumptions leads to all facts broken down exist as atomic facts, points of observation reduced to further points of observation. The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction as the point of awareness, as a boundless formless space, is the recursion of one point of view into a point particle or atomic fact.

This recursion of points, and inversion from one state, abstract or empirical, necessitates that when determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective. Paradoxically there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner, this leaving inversion through isomorphism and recursion as universal principles embodied through an ever present context of awareness.

In shorter terms is the convergence and divergence of phenomena into points that necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Abstractions and empirical senses are intuitively directed to a center point continuously.

Thus the most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed" with the point being the empty context through which we observe reality under a continual imprinting.

It is the assumption and resumption of patents that reflect comprehensibiluty as the ability to connect assumed patterns through prior patterns we assumed. Yet comprehensibilty is the prerequisite to incomprehensibility. What is well defined and clear is made so in order to break the definition down into something unclear and vague. Clarity is unity, multiplicity is vagueness. The assumption of one set of patterns Inverts into a series of newer patterns under the inversive nature of observation through the point of awareness. The formless nature of the point inverts our set of forms into another.

In making terms simple they become complicated. In making things complicated they become simple. The act of definition is thus grounded in a revolution between one and many terms where something is broken apart and put back together. Philosophy and science are thus alchemical, this alchemy is the convergence and divergence of points.

It is the creation and recreation of definitions which causes philosophy to crumble under the gravity of terms alone. What defined one assumption through another eventually becomes a series of assumptions which causes the meaning of the original assumption to crumble.

Principles are the summation of relations between parts. Under this definition all word creation, as the summation of relations between words, differs little from principle creation as both principles and words are the application of boundary to a previously formless phenomenon.

There is no principle defining how to make principles, beyond this aforementioned alchemy of thought. Principle creation is not subject to any principle, thus what we understand as a principle is a group assertion or the projection of some self reflected thought. It is the alignment as symmetry of subjective states under a recursive common bond.


It is the alternation between converging and diverging forms that philosophy lies within a dualism between obscurity and lucidity under this alternation between one and many. It is through this dualism that obscurity and lucidity synthesize into "as is-ness". At best philosophy, and the sciences by proxy, can provide definition that is strictly assumed with this assumptions being the summation of forms into a single point as a perspective or empirical particle.

A series of phenomena are defined within a phenomenon with this summation being a self-referential loop through what it contains. Rationality is fundamental a spiral represented by loop creation. Under these terms all being is connected by context alone.

Philosophy under it's own terms is always problematic as it deals with the continual definition and redefinition of assumptions which occur in cycles. At best philosophy becomes the art of painting pictures with words and as such is an art as much as a science.

The nature of paradox within philosophy again necessitates isomorphism as a general principle: all thesis' result in a symmetrical antithesis as an inversion of the thesis. The repitition of isomorphism, between thesis and antithesis, again necessitates a second universal principle of recursion within philosophy.

The isomorphism between thesis and antithesis, in philosophy, and this reptition as recursion, necessitates a third principle of philosophy being the creation of empty loops as contexts. Philosophy is context creation as asserted loops which invert to further loops.

These loops as contexts, as a universal phenomena, breaks down to a hyper primitive underlying logic which can mean just about anything due to a problem of syntax. This looping begins within basic arithmetic but reflects elsewhere. For example:

All arithmetic foundations are tautological and circular:

1. The subtraction of subtraction is addition through double negation.

(-1-1=-2)=(-1+-1=-2)



2. Division is further the subtraction of subtraction, as the number of times x may be subtracted until point zero is reached.

(6/3=2) = (6-3-3=0)



3. The addition of addition is the number of times x may be added to another.

(3×2=6) = (2+2+2=6)

The only syntax rule is a circularity, yet syntax rules would require a regress outside the system leading to a variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem. The rules would have to be self referencing, and a context within context observes this, thus the framework would have to be descriptive by nature.

As self referencing it would be subject to double positives and double negative simultaneously.

Double negatives are the foundation for all math and logic.

-1-1=-2 results in the first act of addition where addition results from self reference. Addition is the subtraction of subtraction.

(-P --> -P) --> (P-->P) --> (Q --> (-P --> -P))... occurs simultaneously in logic.

Recursion of negatives is the foundation of math and logic.

Its truth value lies in is descriptive properties.

Dually double positives occur: The repitition of positives necessitates a negative.

Example:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)

If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts. Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil".

Good in a state of multiple degrees shows Good as being intrinsically negated, thus a positive (or thesis) as directed towards (tending to, necessitating, equivalent to, if and only if, etc.) another positive (thesis) results in its antithesis.

This occurs within the basic number line as well.

1 and 1 have 0 distance between them...this is the first thesis/thesis as antithesis.

1 and 1 necessitate 0 when counting it on a number line.

1 and 2 have one line between them where this number is -1 if the numbers are to be equal. The variation of 1 into 2 necessitates 2 is a grade of 1 as it is composed of 1...it is a fragment of 1 strictly by observing a number line as multiple 1 line segments. The difference between a positive 1 and a positive 2 is negative one.

The same occurs for the difference between a positive 1 and positive 3...a negative two.

The same occurs for 3 and 7...-4

So a positive and a positive, requires a variation of the original positive into grades, with the grades as different due to a seperation necessitating antithetical or negative elements.

An example using the number line would be you have 3 progressing to 7. 7 is a variation of 1, thus when it goes from 7 to 1 (right to left just like the negative number line) you have -4 as superpositioned within the positive number line.

It is this nature of regressive contexts that a primative underlying logic occurs. Considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be:

"( )" for "context"
"{ }" for "context of contexts"
"[ ]" for "transitional contexf"
"/" "modality of context"
"-->" for "transition of one context to another"
"•" as the "fundamental variable"


A simple statement such as "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:

{(C)[E-->](F/C)}-->{(W)[B-->](C/F)}

Or "The sky is blue"
(S)-->(B)


Or for math

1+2=3
{+1-->(+1-->+1)}-->+3

4÷2=2
(+4/+2) --> +2




All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature; therefore would be expressed as modalities as all modalities are fractions and fractals:

{({(In)(Im)}/A) [S-->] (N/P)} [E-->] (M)[A-->]{(Fn)(Fl)}

"The cat eating the food implies the cat is hungry"
{(C/E)(F)}/(C/H)

The logic is primitive yet seems to represent the basic underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break it down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry. This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line:

(C)[[A-->]J](B)


Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is:

If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation.

Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording.

Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not.

The same applies to any formal system of logic, it is contradictory by it's own nature of description but the formal system still exists. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.

The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic, and reality by default.

The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying centerpoint from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it. Any higher language would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing context again.

In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it.The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad as a symbol ⊙ with all grammar being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal.

From a perspective of temporality all movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality.

This applies to the foundation of logic as well.

Form is the glue of being derived from point space, all phenomenon are the expansion and contraction of a point with the point representing the height of pure form in one respect, pure formlessness in another. The point is the underlying median which holds reality together. Relative to logic this point is best represented through the assumption as a point of view.



Assumption = •
Continuum of assumptions = --->
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. •
2. • ---> •
3. •⊙•
4. (•)•
5. (• ---> •)• ---> (•⊙•)•
6. (• ---> •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•
7. ((•)•)•
8. (--->)•
9. ((--->)• ---> (--->)•)•
10. (⊙)•
11. ((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•
12. •

1. This is an assumption.

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption.

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself.

4. This is an assumption of assumption.

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

7. This is progressive assumption.

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed.

9. Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive.

10. This assumption of multiple progression is circular and is assumed.

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption.

12. This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion. It is both complete and incomplete as assumed.


In mapping logic at it most basic form, logic becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything with this meaning being grounded in form alone.
This form, as variables by nature point to the paradox as to what a variable is and is not.


1. All assumptions are variables, as they represent general statements.

2. A cat is a variable, as it is composed of other types of cats. So is a tree. So is the word "word".

3. If I assume an experience I assume a generalized state of things (sensations, emotions, thoughts) that are composed of particulars that are not being observed. For example the experience of touching a table does not take into account how it was formed, the actual atomic movements or its place in the future...these assumptions are strictly images produced based upon the connection of prior experiences which are assumed.

4. All logical symbols, as such, act as variables. They are composed of other symbols and compose other symbols. They are generalities of transition, with each symbol as fundamentally empty being transitory to another symbol.

5. Each variable as a generality, is a particular which composes another generalized state, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. This necessitates it as a function of transition to another variable, thus all variables are inversive by nature.

For example, +1 is a generality. However it is a particular which composes +1+1=2, +1+2=3, +2+3=+5...etc. Thus it is a transitive state in itself considering it is always inverting from one state to another. +1 is always transitioning into more complex variations of itself, thus is continually inversive from one state to another.

6. Each variable as a particular, is a generality which exists in multiple states and is repeated, thus each variable is strictly is an inherent middle as underlying context of another context. This necessitates is as a form of transition to another variable, thus all variables are recursive by nature.

For example, +1 as a particular is a generality as it is composed of +10 - 9, +10.1 - 9,...etc. It is composed of an infinite number of particulars and as such is an underlying form of many transitive states. +1 is always present as an underlying form of continuity as a general state due to its repetition.

7. All assumptions as both form and functions are inherently variables that necessitate an underlying order that manifests spontaneously and as random through a continual variation of the same thing. Logic is spontaneous as it is grounded in assumptions.

Statements such as A=A or 1+1=2 are fundamentally random, but are ordered as self referencing contexts through recurssion.

A=A can mean anything, with "A" = "Anything" necessitating all phenomena are subject to equivocation....

....while 1+1=2 being the quantifying of any phenomena such as a dot, to a dolphin-hippomatus-turtle hybrid with fire breathing cannons coming out of it fingers, to oranges, to the number of words in a sentence.

8. Logic and math are thus always indefinite and definite at the same time as all variables are simultaneously generals and particulates. This same nature applies to philosophy where any answer is best defined "as is".


It is the nature of the dualism between general and particulate, vagueness and clarity, where philosophy's "as is-ness", expressed through the tautology, where the geometric mapping of tautologies as linear strings undergo a deeper meta circularity

All progressive tautologies result in a variable that represents the tautology itself.

A-->B(A-->A)-->C(A-->A-->A)-->...--> -A(A-->A-->A-->A...)

Where:

-A = (A-->B-->C-->...-->-A) = (A-->A-->A-->A-->A...)

Thus A-->-A

Looping of the variable into a tautology back into a variable as a new tautology necessitates each variable is both a string and atomic fact.

(A-->B-->C-->...-->-A)-->A1
(A1-->A2 --> A3 --> ...--> -A1) --> B1
(B1 --> B2 --> B3 -->...--> -B1) --> C1


This looping between the variable of the tautology and the tautology as a variable summate philosophy as purely context manipulation where philosophy itself is a context, amidst the science/religions and philosophies best represented as "(A)" in reference to the primary equations presented earlier. Under these terms, all variables as contexts are center points for all variables.

Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation:

A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )


B) 1=2
(1(0)) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
(0(0)) = 1( )1( )




C) 2=3
((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )


c) 0=3
((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c1) 1 = 3
(3) = 1( )


D) 4=3
((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )

d) 0=4
((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

d1) 1=4
(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4
((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context.

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise.


Everything reduced to context, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing.

When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules, other than pure geometric forms underlying all abstract and empirical being, for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner. In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle.

Update***

Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. It is the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

As such it is the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These dichotomies represent the general state of a series of particulars existing in symmetrical opposition to eachother. It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of these dualisms. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a fundamental rule.

The dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiry thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic definitions as well. These synthetic definitions occurs as the amalgamation between extremes. For example, the extremes of cowardess and foolhardiness synthesis as bravery.

It is the application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, that necessitates philosophy as fundamentally undefined except as the application of dichotomies which can be represented under a continuum of further subsets of dichotomies. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis, or positive and negative values, necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the inversion of one state into an opposing, yet symmetrical, state. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism. Paradoxically even the application of "dichotomy" and "isomorphism", as key principles, creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism.

The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two stated around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being are opposites around void. The beginning of any quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition, thus even dichotomy and isomorphism are not fully defined except through the inversion of one into another.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables within the thesis into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities a tautology of further quantities. A tautology being the state of one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

For example fhis tautology can be represented, under the variables:

(A--> (B<-->-A))

or the quantities of:

(1-->(2<--->-1))

repsectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness.

"•" as void inverts to a variable as pure being, "A", as (• --> A), and "0" inverts into "1", as (0-->1).

In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another state of thesis and antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing set of forms, with these forms occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1, and 1 inverts to 2. An empty assumption Inverts to a an actual context, and this context Inverts to another context. 2 maintains a difference of 1, resulting in 1 forming -1 as an antithesis, and A maintains a difference from B as -A, resulting in A forming -A as an antithesis.

Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this being a dichotomy as well.


The synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. For example bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of bravery itself.

The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition by nature in which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Again using the example of "bravery" leaves "bravery" as undefined except through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice". Without they thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition.

The application of a percieved formless definition, where a center point definition diverges into a dichotomy, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it. This creation of a new term, through the manifestation of extremes, makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where tautology of definition is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.

At its root, philosophy relies solely upon a dualism of "definition" and "no definition" where any real definition causes a paradox of something else being undefined, thus necessitating a cyclic nature as an alternation between extremes. This alternation between extremes of clarity and ambiguity is a circularity between particulars and generals. This is fully represented under a cycle. This cycle is absolute and constant as the maintanance of assertions; all assertions and forms connect and seperate. This assertion is simple.

It is the expression of one assertion under many assertions, where any form of analysis is the formation of one thing into many through a process of diverging and rediverging definitions. Analysis is a variable multiplier and contradicts any form of wholism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. Dually the progress to a particular is a paradoxical manifestation of a general where a particular as composed of many particulars in turn acts as a general. A part directs itself to a whole. In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one, the ambiguous into a lucid. This can be seen in word definition.

Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as a recursive spiral.  This recursion is the repition of assertions under new forms:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

Where:

1. The original word both references itself and leads to a new word.

2. The new word leads both to the original word, references itself and leads to a new word.

3. This process repeats in an expanding tautological spiral as a series of rings within rings where each word is a context.

4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as a self referencing ring.

The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language it that it manifests under.  It is this this infinite regress to definition that necessitates all terms as existing as an inherent middle.

1. All exists through a infinite continuum.

2. The inversion of one continuum to another continuum allows the recursion of the continuum as a new continuum. This in itself is a continuum.

3. Each continuum, as a subset of an infinite continuum, is one infinite continuum inverted to many continuums, thus necessitating finiteness as multiple infinities.

4. The recurssion of one continuum into infinite continuums necessitates each continuum as a center point for a further continuum thus all continuums are meaningful. This meaning occurs through circularity resulting from repitition.

5. Each continuum, as inverting into another continuum is thus void in and of itself.

6. All continuums as centerpoint for further continuums, are instrincially empty contexts. Each continuum is an intrinsically empty context that is a center point for a further context.

This definition applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. Again, a tautology is one thing manifested in a variety of ways.

All tautologies, are spirals by nature.

1. One phenomena expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomena expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomena continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self expressive nature.


Thus the definition of a tautology is grounded in the inversion of one assertion into another.

This definition map exists alongside of the recursive spiral equation of:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

as:

((A --> A) --> (B<--> -A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, observes the process of a thesis invert to both an antithetical state through a new definition which contains elements as to what one assertion is not.


These equations all represent Recursive/Inversive Contexts. Recursion is the repitition of a phenomenon, inversion as the change from one state into another, and context as the summation of recursion and inversion as a self sustained loop.

1. All assumptions are contexts: (A)(B)(-A)
2. All assumptions are recursive: (A --> A)
3. All assumptions are isomorphic: (A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)
4. All assumptions are contexts: ((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

For example: If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

The same occurs numerically where 1-->2 shows the difference of 1 where if 1 is subtracted, -1, 2 reverts back to one again.

As to one and many, first there was only cat then dog occurs resulting in many contexts. 1=Cat. Many (2) = Dog and Cat.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.


This trinitarian nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts,
as one context ( ),

((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

Considering philosophy is definitive by nature, philosophy follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))


It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirely of philosophy summited under a third equation of:

(A)

which states philosophy itself, as a variation of both science and religion, is an assumed context of definition much like science and language. This nature of definition occurs through the nature of language these three facets of study exist under. The nature of the study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed.

In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exists under a trinity of equations that determine its role as both defining exterior sciences/religions/philosophies as well as internally self referencing:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))
(A)

Philosophy is both a series of equations that occurs through these equations as definition through certain laws of definition. These equations are both self referencing and expressed themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define defintion requires the same laws of definition to define it.  This is a spiral.

These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).

Laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself.

The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is called the Munchausseen Trilemma. However the original Aristotelian laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:

(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.

(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P

(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.

Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves in a circular self referential manner:

((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity into existing in seperate states of either one identity or the other.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of excluded middle where P cannot equal not P.

((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.


The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumptions are assumed.  This shows the isomorphism of one identity into another, as well as the recursion of one identity across multiple states.  This results in a triad of identity properties.



1. Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )


All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point to further assumptions within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular and act as a middle term: (P-->P)




2. Assumption of Inherent Void {( )}


All assumptions as inverting to another assumption necessitate an inherent emptiness of the assumption. All assumptions as intrinsically empty necessitate an inherent isomorphism where one assumption inverts to many tautological assumptions. All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further assumption, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. An assumption as void negates to an assumption as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

Everytime a assumption progresses to another assumption, the new assumption contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new assumption is not the old context and contains what the prior assumption is not. Thus the new assumption always contains an absence of the old assumption in one respect, due to newness of the assumption, while it contains elements of the old assumption at the same time. This is isomorphism and isomorphism breaks down to three different degrees as a triad of dualisms.


1. Nothing into Being: (• --> A)

2. Thetical Being into Antithetical Being: (A --> -A)

3. "Nothing into Being" into "Thetical Being into Antithetical Being": (• --> A) --> (A-->-A)

All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive: {P --> (Q <--> -P)}





3. Assumption of Inherent Context {( • )}


All assumptions as recursive and void necessitates all assumptions as contexts that have both one and many meanings: one meaning as underlying many assumptions, many meanings as inverting from one assumption to another.

Assumptions as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each assumption as a center point observes each assumption as circular through recursion.

Assumptions as inherently void necessitates all assumptions as progressive linear functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.

All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars that are not being observed, each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality, is composed of particular which are empty of definition, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context.  In simpler terms each generality is composed of particulars, which as undefined, leave the general context as empty.

All assumptions as variables are therefore contexts. All assumptions, as contexts, are inherently empty self referential loops inverting to other empty self-referential loops, existing through the point of view of the observer:

{{(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)} --> {(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)}}




These identity properties are not limited to Aristotelian identity laws alone, but the fallacies of logic.  These fallacies act as negative limits. Further more the fallacies which act as negative limits to philosophy are identity properties, isomorphically, as referenced to assumptive law 2.  They are identity properties by representing what a logical assertion is not.


All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies  thus negating the fallacy.  For example the fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature.

In a second respect it equivocates the fallacy to a series of negative limits that define an argument by what it is not. For example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not, linear, while the fallacy of authority defines an argument by it hinging on authority at the expense of logic.

Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves. The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this circularity is a fallacy.  Thus the fallacy both exists and does not exist.


1. All fallacies can be applied to other fallacies thus negating the fallacy. For example, the fallacy of circularity is circular thus negating the fallacy of circularity.

2. All fallacies as negated necessitate all fallacies as truth values. For example the fallacy of circularity  negated necessitates circularity as fundamental.

3. All fallacies as continuously redefined, through  the fallacies of regression and slippery slope, necessitates the fallacy as still existing.  The fallacy exists as what a logical argument is not. For example circularity ceases to exist as a fallacy, yet circularity necessitates what an argument is not (linear), thus the logical argument is defined thetically and antithetical through the fallacy.  a circular argument is valid because it is circular, but it is limited by its circularity.  Fallacies simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

4. The thetical and antithetical nature of the fallacy, as defining an argument necessitates the fallacy as isomorphic. Isomorphism, again, is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite state. The definition of any argument, through the fallacy, requires isomorphism as a key principle.  The repitition of the thesis In many different states necessitates recursion as it becomes an underlying middle term.



----------------------- 

The same isomorphism occurs for truth values where the inversion of truth to falsity, is an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. For example: one point and an infinite number of points appear as the same point.

It is the fallacy of fallacies which necessitate philosophy, at its core being grounded in converging and diverging assumptions stemming from the point of view of the observer. This point of view, transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic.

Abstraction is the manifestation of forms through our rational faculties. Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses. Both abstractions and empircality are manifestation of forms through different dimensions of reality with these dimensions being inversions of the other. We see possible phenomena through the formation of images, imagination, and as such it is an abstraction based upon the projection of empirical forms as abstractions.

A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. The points may be relative point particles, observed empirically, or may be a series of abstract viewpoints. Such thing as an atom may have a given form, as a series of points which summate to a sphere or looping type of shape.

The absense of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field. Take for example a single white point, it is formless and only seen for what it is against a black backdrop. Take away the black back drop and the point is fundamentally a formless abyss. Now if this formless abyss divides, a line between two points occurs as the division of the point. Formless self negates, through double negation, into form. The dualism between the point and boundless field can be observed a synonymous to the particle wave dualism. Pure being, originating from a single point, is pure form as formlessness with form as the convergence and divergence of forms, thus points, necessitating the point as pure movement. The point is the synthesis between form and formless as the origin of both.

All dimensions of reality are composed of forms, it is the alignment of forms, such as the forms developed through abstraction and those that are perceived empirically, which align in such a manner where what is imagined can be physicalized and vice versa.

"Dimension", as defined, is tautological to "form" by nature as a series of complex forms which work together to form a new form. As such, through this nature of definition, we see any philosophical definition as following thr same definition mapping as the words and symbols which form it. Just as the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own, so a dimension is a complex myriad of forms which work together to form a whole. This property of definition is universal.

For example in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to form a whole. Empirically these forms may only exist as a picture. In one dimension the unicorn acts as whole actualized entity, in another dimension it appears only as an image of itself.

The distinction between any set of forms, as dimensions, such as the dichotomy between abstractions and empirically sensed phenomena, occurs by the ability to align through a symmetry. For example a unicorn may exist abstractly but the absense of unicorns empirically, barring symbolism through art, sets a distinction between these dimensions.

All being, as defined consists of forms and dimensions as complex forms. All that exists stems from a singular point with the point being the center of all form. All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by there degrees of seperation from the original point. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image with the image being synonymous to form as both give defintion.

Imagination is the abstract diverging and converging of points to form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. In these respects, however, the physical can be seen as imaginary, that which is given image to, as well. It is this divergence from a single point which allows for one set of forms, be it abstract or physical, to effectively modify but synthesizing through the common source.

Possibility is manifested empirically through the projection of abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension. For example a skyscraper exists as a series of abstractions. The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form, it is formless relative to the skyscraper actually existing. One state, the abstraction, exists as actual form, the other state, the empirical exists as potential form. The form of the skyscraper, existing an an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, as in it is built. The form of one dimension Inverts into another dimension.

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions. In simpler terms, the forms that exist in one dimension over another, sets the distinction. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image, allowing for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions.


The divergence of reason and sense occur through the "Big Bang" and "Principle of Explosion" as formalisms of a single expanding point which diverges into multiple dimensions. This single point transcends both of these principles.

The big bang theory observes all empirical being, condensed into a single point, expand into the variety of forms which are composed of point particles, with the laying out of point particles resulting in the forms. The one point self negated into many.

Dually the principle of explosion replicates this same pattern, all assumptions condensed into a single axiom expanded into the variety of assumptions all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed axiom self negated into many.

In these respects both the big bang and principle of explosion occur through the process of self-negation and as such are inherently two dimensions, one abstract and one physical, resulting in the same phenomena.

These phenomena, both empirical contexts and abstract contexts are connected by a single point that ties the foundations of a priori and a posteriori phenomenon as one.

This results in the "void sequence" which can be proven through a series of lines alternating into new lines. The point represents the original point the empirical and abstract phenomena originate from, the line as the resulting form.

All phenomena result from void voiding itself into form, with form voiding itself into many forms.
Logically this sequence is a result of the Principle Explosion, where from contradiction anything results, empirically this sequence is a result of the Big Bang, where from nothingness everything results.

Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0 value points into the number line:

(0-->0)-->1,-1

**** 1= .______. --->
**** -1= <--- .______.


(1-->1)--> (2, 1/2, -2, -1/2)

*** 2= .____.____. --->
*** 1/2 = .____. --->
*** -2 <--- .____.____.
*** -1/2 <--- .____.


(1-->2)--> (3, 1/3, -3, -1/3)
*** 3 .____.____.____. --->
*** 1/3 .____. --->
*** -3 <--- .____.____.____.
*** -1/3 <--- .____.





Logically this sequence occurs from an empty assumption into variables:

(• --> •) --> A, -A


(A-->A) --> (B, A/B, -A/B, -B)

(A-->B) --> (C, A/C, -A/C, -C)


Empirically this sequence occurs from one set of qualities into another:

Mammal is Cat
(A-->B)

Mammal is Cat is Wild Cat
(A-->B)-->C

Mammal is Cat is Wild Cat as Fraction of Mammal
(A-->B)-->A/C

Mammal is Cat is Not Wild Cat (ie wild cat is wild cat, cat may be something else rather than wild)
(A-->B)--> -C

Mammal is Cat is not cat is fraction of mammal (ie cat may be drawing and as such is not mammal)
(A-->B) ---> -A/C


Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, everything stems from the divergence and reconvergence of a point through which all empirical and abstract being originates. This evolution and involution of points is a multidimensional event creating and recreating all phenomena ranging from the movements of point particles to points of awareness.

This point is both abstract and empirical thus transcending a priori and a posteriori knowledge and can be reflected through the question: "Does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone.

Given a man which possesses such qualities of senses space is also observed as well.

Space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

It reflects the basic nature of a posteriori knowledge as its division of one space into another, a dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness divides into form) and after the senses, as both quality and quantity.

This is further reflected in the respect that physics breaks down to the interactions of point particles, math with the quantification of points, psychology with points of view. Everything is grounded in the forms created by the convergence/divergence of point space; the Big Bang and Principle of explosion, through the "point", is in a state of superpositioning where it exists in many states at once.

This manifestation of multiple states at once necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. If a law is to be universal it must stem across all abstract and empirical realities, thus the law must have a universal form. It is this superimposed form which necessitates being as multiple dimensions glued together to form a whole.

The continual repitition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; any connection of forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction as pure movement be it an empirical or abstract form.

The "explosion" of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion in logic exists at multiple states where one explosion is superimposed on top of another. With the explosion of one phenomenon comes the entropy/negentropy of another as the cycling of forms, be it abstract or physical. A sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form. For example a series of stones expands into the thought of a castle, and the thought of a castle contracts into the actual castle itself.

All forms are superimposed upon other forms, just like raindrops are collected and reformed as a stream through the corner of a roof top, so all forms collect and redirect other forms into new forms. The abstraction of castle directs itself into an actual castle. What reality consists of is layered forms directing eachother through eachother where what is imagined, ie given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form.

The nature of assumption relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form. The formless state of one phenomena, sand for example, is imprinted by another form, a rock, where reality becomes self assuming as the continually imprinting and re imprinting of forms.

To recieve defintion occurs through an isomorphism. The formless state repeats the definition of what is imprinted upon it as an inversion of what projects onto it.

Take sand for example, it takes the inverse imprinting of the rock and the rock, as being worn down by the sand, is inversely imprinted by it.

The same occurs where the psyche is imprinted by images through which it assumes. The psyche as a blank slate through absense of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then reprojects them.

This occurs with the act of counting where one phenomena is inverted into another.

1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomenon into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomenon.

2. Basic division starts with counting, basic counting starts with forms, one basic form for reality is the line. This is inherent within the act of counting.

3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of counting

4. The inversion of one line (or line segment considering the math community views each differently) into two lines is the inversion of one form into many forms.

5. This division occurs through the application of a 0d point. The 0d point is formless and can be considered "void". It is purely assumed, with all assumption not only being void but fundamentally beginning with void considering the "dot" is purely assumed.

6. One form Inverts to many forms through "voiding" of unity. This voiding of unity results it inverting into multiple unities. We see this with the voiding of one line resulting in many lines which still individually are lines.

7. Thus formlessness, as void, negates form into forms but form always exists.

8. Void thus is nothing in itself, it cannot be observed as nothing is "there" to observe. All we can see are multiple states. Using a glass of water and air as example: half is full of water, half is full of air. The dividing line in the middle observes the inversion of one substance (air or water) into another substance (respectively water or air).

9. Void as formless, is thus indefinite. It cannot be defined much like infinity cannot be defined. Thus it is always voiding itself. The voiding of void is form, as Nothingness is not only a self negating concept that creates a concept of "no-thing" but also perpetually negates form as well.

10. So void voids itself because is not really there, as "form". This may sound like a play on words, but step back and think about it. Infinite(void) 0d points(void) result in the "line".

11. This form is thus infinite as well until it is voided into multiple forms in which case it becomes finite. One line is indefinite, considering the voiding of void is indefinite, until the form is voided into multiple forms. This continual division of lines simultaneously results in the continual multiplication of lines.

12. So to summarize:

A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line.

B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voids into multiple lines.

C. The continual manifestation of forms results in one set of forms. The line is composed of infinite lines as one set.




It is this dualism between the abstraction and physical that underlies a common middle context of "form" which binds reality together.

Does a house gain structure through the materials or the form? It is the form which binds the materials together with space acting as the glue which holds the house together. The house exists because of rectangles and triangles, not because of the wooden beams. Matter is shape.

The same applies to a logical argument, does an argument gain structure through propositions or form? It is the form which binds the propositions together. The argument exists because of linearism, circularity and the point of awareness it represents.

Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

Being is a series of movements within movements, with each movement existing as a timezone. Water dripping from a roof is the number of lengths a particle revolves as a series of circumference that unfurl into a line. Stated in simpler terms a second is a series of revolutions of any particle with the summation of these circumferance unraveling into a series of lines. What we consider as movements is multiple lengths of space forming ratios. These same ratios which form lines are the same linear ratios where a word, as a series of definitions, is composed of a further series of progressive definitions. One set of progressive definitions exists inside of another.

Time is a series of linear forms existing within linear forms, and as such is a ratios of spaces. It is this nature of spaces within spaces that time is composed of forms which supercede it.

All movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality. The same occurs through reasoning, an argument exists because it is linear or circular. Physically, phenomena are grounded in the reoccurrence of shapes.

Space has isomorphic shape through matter.

Take for example a rectangle: □

Inversely the shape which space takes through the rectangle is: ■

Space takes form through shape. Shape and space is inseperable. What we understand of reality is forms which exist through curvature and this curvature exists recursively and isomorphically.

It is this replication of phenomena that deem its truth value as something is deemed real based upon its ability to replicate across time; this in itself is a "form" as the recursion of boundaries result in a symmetry as order. For example a car making a zigzag is the repetition of alternating lines from the perspective of a larger timezone.


Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness under the expansion and contraction of form. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

This origin of being, represented from the omnipresent point symbolizes the seed of intelligence as the basic primordial symbol representing the origin of all things. All symbols and acts of quantification and qualification begin with the expression of the dot which gain there origin beginning with a single point in space.

The circle is a symbol of maintenance representing the repetition of phenomena that gives precedence to order. That which repeats exists through a symmetry across time and space much like a habit that gives identity. We deem something as true based upon its ability to replicate.

Intelligence is derived from pattern recognition/application. The problem occurs that intelligence can be rooted in a strictly linear progressive manner of interpretation as one symbol projects to another at the expense of meaning, thus with too much knowledge nothing is known. Under these terms all patterns converge and diverge from a point.

Reality is fundamentally formless, under the point, as all images are merely "formlessness" given limit. This occurence of the point, as formless, dividing into form and redividing into further forms accounts for the confusion of complexity through a myriad of images which stifle any true thought under the gravity of symbols each with their own respective interpretations.

Truth is existence with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being. This centerpoint can be called "God", with the circumferance being the range of being which extends from and through the "Creator".

The convergence and divergence of points (of view) within philosophy, from a single point (of awareness) gives a deeper analysis to the nature of definition

Just like 1 point takes the same form as infinite points, so defintion takes the same manner in reasoning. One assumption is broken down into so many assumptions, that proof begins to take the same form as the original assertion thus becoming an assertion again.

The failure of definition in philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. The failure in acknowledging principles as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole which regresses back to the paradoxical "point" of it, "the point".

Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This couldn't be more false, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where perspective, through assumption, is first and foremost.

The continual regression of assumptions leads to all facts broken down exist as atomic facts, points of observation reduced to further points of observation. The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction as the point of awareness, as a boundless formless space, is the recursion of one point of view into a point particle or atomic fact.

This recursion of points, and inversion from one state, abstract or empirical, necessitates that when determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective. Paradoxically there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner, this leaving inversion through isomorphism and recursion as universal principles embodied through an ever present context of awareness.

In shorter terms is the convergence and divergence of phenomena into points that necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Abstractions and empirical senses are intuitively directed to a center point continuously.

Thus the most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed" with the point being the empty context through which we observe reality under a continual imprinting.

It is the assumption and resumption of patents that reflect comprehensibiluty as the ability to connect assumed patterns through prior patterns we assumed. Yet comprehensibilty is the prerequisite to incomprehensibility. What is well defined and clear is made so in order to break the definition down into something unclear and vague. Clarity is unity, multiplicity is vagueness. The assumption of one set of patterns Inverts into a series of newer patterns under the inversive nature of observation through the point of awareness. The formless nature of the point inverts our set of forms into another.

In making terms simple they become complicated. In making things complicated they become simple. The act of definition is thus grounded in a revolution between one and many terms where something is broken apart and put back together. Philosophy and science are thus alchemical, this alchemy is the convergence and divergence of points.

It is the creation and recreation of definitions which causes philosophy to crumble under the gravity of terms alone. What defined one assumption through another eventually becomes a series of assumptions which causes the meaning of the original assumption to crumble.

Principles are the summation of relations between parts. Under this definition all word creation, as the summation of relations between words, differs little from principle creation as both principles and words are the application of boundary to a previously formless phenomenon.

There is no principle defining how to make principles, beyond this aforementioned alchemy of thought. Principle creation is not subject to any principle, thus what we understand as a principle is a group assertion or the projection of some self reflected thought. It is the alignment as symmetry of subjective states under a recursive common bond.


It is the alternation between converging and diverging forms that philosophy lies within a dualism between obscurity and lucidity under this alternation between one and many. It is through this dualism that obscurity and lucidity synthesize into "as is-ness". At best philosophy, and the sciences by proxy, can provide definition that is strictly assumed with this assumptions being the summation of forms into a single point as a perspective or empirical particle.

A series of phenomena are defined within a phenomenon with this summation being a self-referential loop through what it contains. Rationality is fundamental a spiral represented by loop creation. Under these terms all being is connected by context alone.

Philosophy under it's own terms is always problematic as it deals with the continual definition and redefinition of assumptions which occur in cycles. At best philosophy becomes the art of painting pictures with words and as such is an art as much as a science.

The nature of paradox within philosophy again necessitates isomorphism as a general principle: all thesis' result in a symmetrical antithesis as an inversion of the thesis. The repitition of isomorphism, between thesis and antithesis, again necessitates a second universal principle of recursion within philosophy.

The isomorphism between thesis and antithesis, in philosophy, and this reptition as recursion, necessitates a third principle of philosophy being the creation of empty loops as contexts. Philosophy is context creation as asserted loops which invert to further loops.

These loops as contexts, as a universal phenomena, breaks down to a hyper primitive underlying logic which can mean just about anything due to a problem of syntax. This looping begins within basic arithmetic but reflects elsewhere. For example:

All arithmetic foundations are tautological and circular:

1. The subtraction of subtraction is addition through double negation.

(-1-1=-2)=(-1+-1=-2)



2. Division is further the subtraction of subtraction, as the number of times x may be subtracted until point zero is reached.

(6/3=2) = (6-3-3=0)



3. The addition of addition is the number of times x may be added to another.

(3×2=6) = (2+2+2=6)

The only syntax rule is a circularity, yet syntax rules would require a regress outside the system leading to a variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem. The rules would have to be self referencing, and a context within context observes this, thus the framework would have to be descriptive by nature.

As self referencing it would be subject to double positives and double negative simultaneously.

Double negatives are the foundation for all math and logic.

-1-1=-2 results in the first act of addition where addition results from self reference. Addition is the subtraction of subtraction.

(-P --> -P) --> (P-->P) --> (Q --> (-P --> -P))... occurs simultaneously in logic.

Recursion of negatives is the foundation of math and logic.

Its truth value lies in is descriptive properties.

Dually double positives occur: The repitition of positives necessitates a negative.

Example:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)

If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts. Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil".

Good in a state of multiple degrees shows Good as being intrinsically negated, thus a positive (or thesis) as directed towards (tending to, necessitating, equivalent to, if and only if, etc.) another positive (thesis) results in its antithesis.

This occurs within the basic number line as well.

1 and 1 have 0 distance between them...this is the first thesis/thesis as antithesis.

1 and 1 necessitate 0 when counting it on a number line.

1 and 2 have one line between them where this number is -1 if the numbers are to be equal. The variation of 1 into 2 necessitates 2 is a grade of 1 as it is composed of 1...it is a fragment of 1 strictly by observing a number line as multiple 1 line segments. The difference between a positive 1 and a positive 2 is negative one.

The same occurs for the difference between a positive 1 and positive 3...a negative two.

The same occurs for 3 and 7...-4

So a positive and a positive, requires a variation of the original positive into grades, with the grades as different due to a seperation necessitating antithetical or negative elements.

An example using the number line would be you have 3 progressing to 7. 7 is a variation of 1, thus when it goes from 7 to 1 (right to left just like the negative number line) you have -4 as superpositioned within the positive number line.

It is this nature of regressive contexts that a primative underlying logic occurs. Considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be:

"( )" for "context"
"{ }" for "context of contexts"
"[ ]" for "transitional contexf"
"/" "modality of context"
"-->" for "transition of one context to another"
"•" as the "fundamental variable"


A simple statement such as "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:

{(C)[E-->](F/C)}-->{(W)[B-->](C/F)}

Or "The sky is blue"
(S)-->(B)


Or for math

1+2=3
{+1-->(+1-->+1)}-->+3

4÷2=2
(+4/+2) --> +2




All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature; therefore would be expressed as modalities as all modalities are fractions and fractals:

{({(In)(Im)}/A) [S-->] (N/P)} [E-->] (M)[A-->]{(Fn)(Fl)}

"The cat eating the food implies the cat is hungry"
{(C/E)(F)}/(C/H)

The logic is primitive yet seems to represent the basic underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break it down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry. This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line:

(C)[[A-->]J](B)


Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is:

If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation.

Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording.

Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not.

The same applies to any formal system of logic, it is contradictory by it's own nature of description but the formal system still exists. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.

The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic, and reality by default.

The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying centerpoint from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it. Any higher language would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing context again.

In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it.The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad as a symbol ⊙ with all grammar being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal.

From a perspective of temporality all movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality.

This applies to the foundation of logic as well.

Form is the glue of being derived from point space, all phenomenon are the expansion and contraction of a point with the point representing the height of pure form in one respect, pure formlessness in another. The point is the underlying median which holds reality together. Relative to logic this point is best represented through the assumption as a point of view.



Assumption = •
Continuum of assumptions = --->
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. •
2. • ---> •
3. •⊙•
4. (•)•
5. (• ---> •)• ---> (•⊙•)•
6. (• ---> •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•
7. ((•)•)•
8. (--->)•
9. ((--->)• ---> (--->)•)•
10. (⊙)•
11. ((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•
12. •

1. This is an assumption.

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption.

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself.

4. This is an assumption of assumption.

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

7. This is progressive assumption.

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed.

9. Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive.

10. This assumption of multiple progression is circular and is assumed.

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption.

12. This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion. It is both complete and incomplete as assumed.


In mapping logic at it most basic form, logic becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything with this meaning being grounded in form alone.
This form, as variables by nature point to the paradox as to what a variable is and is not.


1. All assumptions are variables, as they represent general statements.

2. A cat is a variable, as it is composed of other types of cats. So is a tree. So is the word "word".

3. If I assume an experience I assume a generalized state of things (sensations, emotions, thoughts) that are composed of particulars that are not being observed. For example the experience of touching a table does not take into account how it was formed, the actual atomic movements or its place in the future...these assumptions are strictly images produced based upon the connection of prior experiences which are assumed.

4. All logical symbols, as such, act as variables. They are composed of other symbols and compose other symbols. They are generalities of transition, with each symbol as fundamentally empty being transitory to another symbol.

5. Each variable as a generality, is a particular which composes another generalized state, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. This necessitates it as a function of transition to another variable, thus all variables are inversive by nature.

For example, +1 is a generality. However it is a particular which composes +1+1=2, +1+2=3, +2+3=+5...etc. Thus it is a transitive state in itself considering it is always inverting from one state to another. +1 is always transitioning into more complex variations of itself, thus is continually inversive from one state to another.

6. Each variable as a particular, is a generality which exists in multiple states and is repeated, thus each variable is strictly is an inherent middle as underlying context of another context. This necessitates is as a form of transition to another variable, thus all variables are recursive by nature.

For example, +1 as a particular is a generality as it is composed of +10 - 9, +10.1 - 9,...etc. It is composed of an infinite number of particulars and as such is an underlying form of many transitive states. +1 is always present as an underlying form of continuity as a general state due to its repetition.

7. All assumptions as both form and functions are inherently variables that necessitate an underlying order that manifests spontaneously and as random through a continual variation of the same thing. Logic is spontaneous as it is grounded in assumptions.

Statements such as A=A or 1+1=2 are fundamentally random, but are ordered as self referencing contexts through recurssion.

A=A can mean anything, with "A" = "Anything" necessitating all phenomena are subject to equivocation....

....while 1+1=2 being the quantifying of any phenomena such as a dot, to a dolphin-hippomatus-turtle hybrid with fire breathing cannons coming out of it fingers, to They're nasty and evil, to the number of words in a sentence.

8. Logic and math are thus always indefinite and definite at the same time as all variables are simultaneously generals and particulates. This same nature applies to philosophy where any answer is best defined "as is".


It is the nature of the dualism between general and particulate, vagueness and clarity, where philosophy's "as is-ness", expressed through the tautology, where the geometric mapping of tautologies as linear strings undergo a deeper meta circularity

All progressive tautologies result in a variable that represents the tautology itself.

A-->B(A-->A)-->C(A-->A-->A)-->...--> -A(A-->A-->A-->A...)

Where:

-A = (A-->B-->C-->...-->-A) = (A-->A-->A-->A-->A...)

Thus A-->-A

Looping of the variable into a tautology back into a variable as a new tautology necessitates each variable is both a string and atomic fact.

(A-->B-->C-->...-->-A)-->A1
(A1-->A2 --> A3 --> ...--> -A1) --> B1
(B1 --> B2 --> B3 -->...--> -B1) --> C1


This looping between the variable of the tautology and the tautology as a variable summate philosophy as purely context manipulation where philosophy itself is a context, amidst the science/religions and philosophies best represented as "(A)" in reference to the primary equations presented earlier. Under these terms, all variables as contexts are center points for all variables.

Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation:

A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )


B) 1=2
(1(0)) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
(0(0)) = 1( )1( )




C) 2=3
((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )


c) 0=3
((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c1) 1 = 3
(3) = 1( )


D) 4=3
((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )

d) 0=4
((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

d1) 1=4
(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4
((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context.

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise.


Everything reduced to context, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context. To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing. The context as having any secondary nature to truth is in itself a context, thus what we understand of context is the inversion of one context to another, causing one context is exist recursively through another.

When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules, other than pure geometric forms underlying all abstract and empirical being, for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner. In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle.

Update****



Update***

Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. It is the entropy and negentropy, evolution and involution, regression and progression and expansion and contraction of definition.

As such it is the manifestation of thetical and antithetical dichotomies, which synthesize to produce further definitions. These dichotomies represent the general state of a series of particulars existing in symmetrical opposition to eachother. It is definition creation through the diverging and reconverging of these dualisms. There is no set rule in defining where and when to apply the application of dichotomy creation, yet this dichotomy is fundamental as a fundamental rule.

The dichotomy can be applied anywhere within philosophical enquiry thus necessitating philosophy as subject to not just an infinite number of thesis and antithesis, but an infinite number of synthetic definitions as well. These synthetic definitions occurs as the amalgamation between extremes. For example, the extremes of cowardess and foolhardiness synthesis as bravery.

It is the application of dichotomies, through any series of propositions, that necessitates philosophy as fundamentally undefined except as the application of dichotomies which can be represented under a continuum of further subsets of dichotomies. This further necessitates definition as a process, with this process following a set of finite rules. The manifestation of defintion is in itself defined under an infinite regress of dualisms.

What is not infinite is the fact the dichotomy, as an act of division in definitions, is the one primary principle philosophy contains. The creation of a thesis and antithesis, or positive and negative values, necessitates philosophy as founded under a principle of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the inversion of one state into an opposing, yet symmetrical, state. The thesis occurs, and Inverts into an opposing antithesis, thus grounding the dualism as a process of inversion from one state into a symmetrically opposite other.

Philosophy is thus isomorphic in nature, through the manifestation of the dichotomy. The dichotomous nature of definition is inseperable from a principle of isomorphism. Paradoxically even the application of "dichotomy" and "isomorphism", as key principles, creates a dualistic tension between the quantitative nature of a dichotomy and the qualitative nature of isomorphism.

The tension between the thesis and antithesis requires an alternation between these two stated around a center point of an absense of definition that the tension seeks to define. For example 1 and -1 are opposites grounded around 0 as the center point. Being and non-being are opposites around void. The beginning of any quality and quantity is mediated by a term which is completely absent of definition, thus even dichotomy and isomorphism are not fully defined except through the inversion of one into another.

The synthesis of these opposing states necessitate the amalgamation of the thesis and antithesis, in a synthetic state as the recursion of key variables within the thesis into a new form. Quality manifests into a tautology of further qualities, quantities a tautology of further quantities. A tautology being the state of one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

For example fhis tautology can be represented, under the variables:

(A--> (B<-->-A))

or the quantities of:

(1-->(2<--->-1))

repsectively where the formless state, either the variable (• --> •) or (0-->0), is the negation of what is formless into two forms that are isomorphic to the original state of formlessness.

"•" as void inverts to a variable as pure being, "A", as (• --> A), and "0" inverts into "1", as (0-->1).

In simpler terms the isomorphism begins with a completely formless state inverting to a state of form with these forms observing another state of thesis and antithesis.

The formless nature of the original assertion takes form by inverting into an opposing set of forms, with these forms occuring under another set of opposing states. 0 inverts to 1, and 1 inverts to 2. An empty assumption Inverts to a an actual context, and this context Inverts to another context. 2 maintains a difference of 1, resulting in 1 forming -1 as an antithesis, and A maintains a difference from B as -A, resulting in A forming -A as an antithesis.

Isomorphism, is thus paradoxically isomorphic. On one hand it is expressed through the dichotomy of being and nothing, dually it is expressed through the dichotomy of one being and multiple beings. Isomorphism, as a dichotomy, is expressed through a meta dichotomy with this being a dichotomy as well.


The synthetic state, as the mediation between opposites, is thus grounded in a tautology of the thesis. For example bravery exists as the synthesis of the thesis of aggression and the antithesis of cowardess, as a tautology of bravery itself.

The process of definition, through the dichotomy, is premised upon a key term which is absent in definition by nature in which the thesis and antithesis seek to define. Again using the example of "bravery" leaves "bravery" as undefined except through the dualism of "aggression" and "cowardice". Without they thesis and antithesis, "bravery" is formless in definition.

The application of a percieved formless definition, where a center point definition diverges into a dichotomy, underlies the nature of philosophy resulting in a loop of interplaying opposites that are determined as a means of defining it. This creation of a new term, through the manifestation of extremes, makes philosophy a dynamic process of continuing definitions where tautology of definition is as much a dynamic state as it is a static one.

At its root, philosophy relies solely upon a dualism of "definition" and "no definition" where any real definition causes a paradox of something else being undefined, thus necessitating a cyclic nature as an alternation between extremes. This alternation between extremes of clarity and ambiguity is a circularity between particulars and generals. This is fully represented under a cycle. This cycle is absolute and constant as the maintanance of assertions; all assertions and forms connect and seperate. This assertion is simple.

It is the expression of one assertion under many assertions, where any form of analysis is the formation of one thing into many through a process of diverging and rediverging definitions. Analysis is a variable multiplier and contradicts any form of wholism in knowledge where being exists as one entity. Dually the progress to a particular is a paradoxical manifestation of a general where a particular as composed of many particulars in turn acts as a general. A part directs itself to a whole. In the duality between definition and no definition the lucid assertion manifests as an ambiguous one, the ambiguous into a lucid. This can be seen in word definition.

Observing how words are defined in a dictionary, all definitions can be mapped as a recursive spiral. This recursion is the repition of assertions under new forms:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

Where:

1. The original word both references itself and leads to a new word.

2. The new word leads both to the original word, references itself and leads to a new word.

3. This process repeats in an expanding tautological spiral as a series of rings within rings where each word is a context.

4. All words, along a continuum of rings, are center points for new words while are intrinsically empty as a self referencing ring.

The process of philosophy is a process of definition derived from the very same foundations of language it that it manifests under. It is this this infinite regress to definition that necessitates all terms as existing as an inherent middle.

1. All exists through a infinite continuum.

2. The inversion of one continuum to another continuum allows the recursion of the continuum as a new continuum. This in itself is a continuum.

3. Each continuum, as a subset of an infinite continuum, is one infinite continuum inverted to many continuums, thus necessitating finiteness as multiple infinities.

4. The recurssion of one continuum into infinite continuums necessitates each continuum as a center point for a further continuum thus all continuums are meaningful. This meaning occurs through circularity resulting from repitition.

5. Each continuum, as inverting into another continuum is thus void in and of itself.

6. All continuums as centerpoint for further continuums, are instrincially empty contexts. Each continuum is an intrinsically empty context that is a center point for a further context.

This definition applies to being itself, as tautological assumptions of reality itself. Again, a tautology is one thing manifested in a variety of ways.

All tautologies, are spirals by nature.

1. One phenomena expresses itself in a new manner.
2. The new phenomena expresses itself as a variation of both itself and the original.
3. The original phenomena continues expressing itself in a newer state, with the newer state continuing its self expressive nature.


Thus the definition of a tautology is grounded in the inversion of one assertion into another.

This definition map exists alongside of the recursive spiral equation of:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))

as:

((A --> A) --> (B<--> -A))

Where All definition, as the progression of one assumption to another, observes the process of a thesis invert to both an antithetical state through a new definition which contains elements as to what one assertion is not.


These equations all represent Recursive/Inversive Contexts. Recursion is the repitition of a phenomenon, inversion as the change from one state into another, and context as the summation of recursion and inversion as a self sustained loop.

1. All assumptions are contexts: (A)(B)(-A)
2. All assumptions are recursive: (A --> A)
3. All assumptions are isomorphic: (A --> A) --> (B <--> -A)
4. All assumptions are contexts: ((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

For example: If "A" is cat and cat directs to Dog "B", as non cat, the recurssion of variables in Dog, as cat, occurs (such as hair, teeth, 4 legs, etc.), but the Dog is not cat. So if Cat progresses to Dog, Dog and Not Cat occurs through eachother.

The same occurs numerically where 1-->2 shows the difference of 1 where if 1 is subtracted, -1, 2 reverts back to one again.

As to one and many, first there was only cat then dog occurs resulting in many contexts. 1=Cat. Many (2) = Dog and Cat.

Everytime a context progresses to another context, the new context contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new context is not the old context and contains what the prior context is not. Thus the new context always contains an absence of the old context in one respect, due to newness of the context, while contains elements of the old at the same time.


This trinitarian nature to definition is further reflected, under a trinity of contexts,
as one context ( ),

((A-->A)-->(B<-->-A))

Considering philosophy is definitive by nature, philosophy follows a pre-set equation in how it functions thus necessitating philosophy is a variation of specific set of equations:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))


It is this dualism of equations, summating under a context which necessitates the entirely of philosophy summited under a third equation of:

(A)

which states philosophy itself, as a variation of both science and religion, is an assumed context of definition much like science and language. This nature of definition occurs through the nature of language these three facets of study exist under. The nature of the study is only as accurate as the language by which it is expressed.

In summation philosophy, and its proxies of science and religion, exists under a trinity of equations that determine its role as both defining exterior sciences/religions/philosophies as well as internally self referencing:

((A--> A)--> B --> (A --> B --> C))
((A --> A) --> (B <--> -A))
(A)

Philosophy is both a series of equations that occurs through these equations as definition through certain laws of definition. These equations are both self referencing and expressed themselves tautologically through further equations much in the same manner to define defintion requires the same laws of definition to define it. This is a spiral.

These equations act as identity laws, not just of philosophy but as philosophy itself. Philosophy is a tautology of identity laws that stem beyond Aristotelian principles of the Principle of Identity: (P-->P), The Law of Non-Contradiction (P=/=P) and the Law of Excluded Middle (P v -P).

Laws of identity are unavoidable in philosophy as an assumed context is constant, this assumed context is identity itself.

The nature of tautologies are expressed as points of awareness, a continual regress of assertions, and circularly self referencing. This triad is called the Munchausseen Trilemma. However the original Aristotelian laws of identity are contradictory if applied under the Munchauseen Trilemma:

(P=P) is subject to circularity as P is both the premise and conclusion.

(P=/=-P) is subject to infinite regress as -P equates to (R,S,T,...) as variables which are not P

(Pv-P) is subject to assumed assertions as P and -P are strictly taken without proof.

Dually the laws are contradictory if applied to themselves in a circular self referential manner:

((P=P)v(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of excluded middle one principle of identity exists or the other thus negating the principle of identity into existing in seperate states of either one identity or the other.

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of identity that two opposing values are equal through the law of identity thus negating the law of excluded middle where P cannot equal not P.

((P=P)=/=(-P=-P)) necessitates under the law of non-contradiction that two principles equal through the law of identity are not equal thus the law of identity is not equal to itself.


The law of identity is grounded under assertions thus assumptions. All assumptions are assumed. This shows the isomorphism of one identity into another, as well as the recursion of one identity across multiple states. This results in a triad of identity properties.



1. Assumption of Inherent Middle ( • )


All assumptions as recursive necessitate a necessary common bond amidst assumptions through the underlying assumption which repeats. All assumptions exist as variations of eachother through a recursive state, thus all assumptions exist as a center point to further assumptions within the continuum of assumptions. All assumptions as having common underlying assumption necessitates an inherent middle assumption. All assumptions, as recursive, are inherently circular and act as a middle term: (P-->P)




2. Assumption of Inherent Void {( )}


All assumptions as inverting to another assumption necessitate an inherent emptiness of the assumption. All assumptions as intrinsically empty necessitate an inherent isomorphism where one assumption inverts to many tautological assumptions. All assumptions are void in themselves unless they continue to further assumption, thus each assumption as void voids itself into another assumption. An assumption as void negates to an assumption as existing, one axiom inverts to many.

Everytime a assumption progresses to another assumption, the new assumption contains elements of the old (through recursion) but the new assumption is not the old context and contains what the prior assumption is not. Thus the new assumption always contains an absence of the old assumption in one respect, due to newness of the assumption, while it contains elements of the old assumption at the same time. This is isomorphism and isomorphism breaks down to three different degrees as a triad of dualisms.


1. Nothing into Being: (• --> P)

2. Thetical Being into Antithetical Being: (P --> -P)

3. "Nothing into Being" into "Thetical Being into Antithetical Being": (• --> P) --> (P --> -P)

All assumptions, as inversive, are inherently linear and progressive: {P --> (Q <--> -P)}





3. Assumption of Inherent Context {( • )}


All assumptions as recursive and void necessitates all assumptions as contexts that have both one and many meanings: one meaning as underlying many assumptions, many meanings as inverting from one assumption to another.

Assumptions as inherent middles necessitate a symmetry where each assumption as a center point observes each assumption as circular through recursion.

Assumptions as inherently void necessitates all assumptions as progressive linear functions where a function, as that which changes one form to another, is fundamentally formless.

All assumptions are generalized state of things that are composed of particulars that are not being observed, each assumption is thus a variable. Each variable as a generality, is composed of particular which are empty of definition, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. In simpler terms each generality is composed of particulars, which as undefined, leave the general context as empty.

All assumptions as variables are therefore contexts. All assumptions, as contexts, are inherently empty self referential loops inverting to other empty self-referential loops, existing through the point of view of the observer:

{{(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)} --> {(P-->P) --> (Q --> -P)}}




These identity properties are not limited to Aristotelian identity laws alone, but the fallacies of logic. These fallacies act as negative limits. Further more the fallacies which act as negative limits to philosophy are identity properties, isomorphically, as referenced to assumptive law 2. They are identity properties by representing what a logical assertion is not.


All fallacies can be applied to all fallacies thus negating the fallacy.

For example the fallacy of authority is an authority statement thus negated. All assertions are authoritative, within certain degrees, by nature. Another example the fallacy of circularity can be expressed as: (Circularity is a fallacy because circularity is a fallacy) = Fallacy of Circularity

In a second respect it equivocates the fallacy to a series of negative limits that define an argument by what it is not. For example the fallacy of circularity defines a philosophical argument by what it is not, linear, while the fallacy of authority defines an argument by it hinging on authority at the expense of logic.

Fallacies are isomorphisms of truth values when applied to themselves. The fallacy of circularity exists because of the fallacy of circularity, but it simultaneously does not exist for this very same reason as this circularity is a fallacy. Thus the fallacy both exists and does not exist.


1. All fallacies can be applied to other fallacies thus negating the fallacy. For example, the fallacy of circularity is circular thus negating the fallacy of circularity.

2. All fallacies as negated necessitate all fallacies as truth values. For example the fallacy of circularity negated necessitates circularity as fundamental.

3. All fallacies as continuously redefined, through the fallacies of regression and slippery slope, necessitates the fallacy as still existing. The fallacy exists as what a logical argument is not. For example circularity ceases to exist as a fallacy, yet circularity necessitates what an argument is not (linear), thus the logical argument is defined thetically and antithetical through the fallacy. a circular argument is valid because it is circular, but it is limited by its circularity. Fallacies simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

4. The thetical and antithetical nature of the fallacy, as defining an argument necessitates the fallacy as isomorphic. Isomorphism, again, is the inversion of one state into a symmetrical opposite state. The definition of any argument, through the fallacy, requires isomorphism as a key principle. The repitition of the thesis In many different states necessitates recursion as it becomes an underlying middle term.


The isomorphic nature of fallacies and nom-fallacies sets the premise for truth values where the inversion of truth to falsity, is an inversion from The Good to a lesser good. One truth inverts to many comparative truths under an isomorphism where the one and the many become symmetrical. One Good inverting to many goods inverts one God into many degrees of Good, thus a lesser good resulting in the antithesis of good as evil.

For example:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)


Again If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts. Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil". This applies to all assertions as well, where the inversion from one assertion to many assertions results in many assertions where the assertions manifests in degrees thus resulting in the antithesis. This shows through recursion of the original assertion, that an isomorphism simultaneously occurs where the variation of one assertion to another results in a simulateous antithesis.

It is the these tautology of assertions, through a thesis and antithesis, which necessitate philosophy at its core being grounded in converging and diverging assumptions stemming from the point of view of the observer. This point of view begins with the assertion itself.

The question of "what is the point of view?" stems from its origin as being the formless center from which both isomorphism and recurssion occurs.

This point of view transcends both a priori and a posteriori knowledge, that which is observe prior to or after the senses, under the dualism of both the "Big Bang" and "Explosion" principles of both science and logic. These principles occur both abstractly and empirically.

Abstraction is the manifestation of forms through our rational faculties.

Empiricality is the manifestation of forms through the senses.

A form is a series of converging and diverging points which summate to a given complex actual state of being. The points may be relative point particles, observed empirically, or may be a series of abstract viewpoints. Such thing as an atom may have a given form, as a series of points which summate to a sphere or looping type of shape.

The absense of form, dually, is an absence of converging and diverging points as a single point which is conducive to a boundless field.

Just as the Big Bang of physics originates from a point, and the Principle of explosion originates from a point of view, so do forms originate from a single Taket.


Take for example a single white point. It is formless and only seen for what it is against a black backdrop. Take away the black back drop and the point is fundamentally a formless abyss. Now if this formless abyss divides, a line between two points occurs as the division of the point. Formlesnesns self negates, through double negation, into form. The formless nature of any assertion self negation when the original assertion reassumes. Formless self negates into form, and this originates with the point. This point is intrinsically empty through the point of view of the observer's assumptive capacity in which reality is imprinted.

The assumption of assumption results in a tautology through the isomorphism of one assumption into many, and recursion as the underlying assumptions which stem across all of its variations. This begins with the point of view of the observer, under the Principle of explosion where from self contradiction (the formlessness of formlessness) anything follows. It also occurs under the big bang where all being occurs from the voiding of void.

The point, as the origin of all forms, be it abstract or physical, thus maintains a dualistic nature.

The dualism between the point and boundless field can be observed a synonymous to the particle wave dualism. On one hand the point is formless, when observsd in a singular state, on the other hand it allows for form when observed in multiple states. This point represents the origin of both the empirical point particle of physics and the point of view of all logical assertions.

It is the synthesis of points, diverging and converging, that result in the dimensions of reality.

"Dimension", as defined, is tautological to "form" by nature as a series of complex forms which work together to form a new form. As such, through this nature of definition, we see any philosophical definition as following thr same definition mapping as the words and symbols which form it. Just as the empirical and abstract are composed of complex forms which respectively exist each to their own, so a dimension is a complex myriad of forms which work together to form a whole.

This property of definition is universal, this universality is represented under the tautological nature of reality. One form inverts to another form, with an underlying form that exists recursively bind reality together. It is this tautology of forms, into dimensions, which show an underlying common ground between the different dimtensions of abstractness and empiricality as forms in themselves.

For example in one dimension a unicorn may exist, as an abstraction, as certain forms (the horn, horse-like body) that work together to whole. One form superimposes on another into a new a form.

Yet certain forms exist distinctly as abstract due to the distinction of empiricality from abstraction. The dimension of Empricality is an isomorphism of abstractness, one dimension is a recursion of the other through the origin of the point.

Empirically the form of a unicorn may only exist as a picture. In one dimension the unicorn acts as whole actualized entity, in another dimension it appears only as an image of itself.

The distinction between any set of forms, as dimensions, such as the dichotomy between abstractions and empirically sensed phenomena, occurs by the ability to align through a symmetry. For example a unicorn may exist abstractly but the absense of unicorns empirically, barring symbolism through art, sets a distinction between these dimensions.

All being, as defined consists of forms and dimensions as complex forms. All that exists stems from a singular point with the point being the center of all form.

All forms, when compared through grades, can be seen as more or less than other forms by there degrees of seperation from the original point. It is this degree of distinction from the original point that all forms take on the nature of an image with the image being synonymous to form as both give definition.

Imagination is the dimension of abstraction diverging and converging points into forms to form a new image which may align or not align in accords to the nature of the empirical dimension. One dimension exists outside of another, thus possibly imposing form onto the other. What is imaginary is that which is given image too.

However, in these respects, the physical can be seen as imaginary, that which is given image to. It is this divergence from a single point which allows for one set of forms, be it abstract or physical, to effectively synthesize through the common source.

What "possibility" is the state of actuality of one form in one dimension and its potentiality in another. One form, in one dimension, exists at a higher level in time relative to another. Where a form may be actual under abstraction it is potentially existing empirically and vice-versa. It is the divergence of timelines, of one dimension over another, that takes into account dimensions as being seperate by time.

Possible forms are manifested empirically through the projection of an abstraction onto the formless nature of the empirical dimension.

For example a skyscraper exists as a series of abstractions. The empirically existing field is absent of this skyscraper form, it is formless relative to the skyscraper actually existing. One state, the abstraction, exists as actual form, the other state, the empirical exists as potential form. Actuality is form, potentiality is formless. The actual projects onto the potential and the potential assfumes the imprint of the actual. Under these respects the form of the skyscraper, existing an an abstraction, is thus inverted into a physical state upon the field, as in it is built. The form of one dimension Inverts into another dimension. One dimension projects and the other is imprinted. Formlessness assume form. What is indefinite is imprinted by what is definite.

The existence of one form in one dimension, and its absence in another, sets the distinction between dimensions. In one dimension the form ceases to exist, thus representing a state of relative formlessness to that image. This allow for an isomorphic imprinting between dimensions, where symmetrically opposite dimensions, one representing being and the other non-being, synthesize.

The formation of the skyscraper represents the recursion of the abstract into a tautological physical form. The same occurs inversively where an actual physical form projects tautollogically into an abstraction. The progression of an empirical horse into a tautological abstraction of a unicorn would be one example.

The Big Bang and Principle of explosion are both isomorphisms of eachother through the dualism of abstraction and empiricality.

The big bang theory observes all empirical being, condensed into a single point, expand into the variety of forms which are composed of point particles, with the laying out of point particles resulting in the forms. The one point self negated into many.

Dually the principle of explosion replicates this same pattern, all assumptions condensed into a single axiom self contradicting into the variety of assumptions, all composed of points of awareness. It is one assumed axiom self negated into many.

In these respects both the big bang and principle of explosion occur through the process of self-negation and as such are inherently two dimensions, one abstract and one physical, resulting in the same phenomena.

These phenomena, both empirical contexts and abstract contexts are connected by a single point that ties the foundations of a priori and a posteriori phenomenon as one.

It is the tautology of the point, into a series of points existing as forms which results in the "void sequence".

This can be proven through a series of lines alternating into new lines. The dot represents the original point the empirical and abstract phenomena originate from, the line as the resulting form.

All phenomena result from void voiding itself into form, with form voiding itself into many forms.
Logically this sequence is a result of the Principle Explosion, where from contradiction anything results, empirically this sequence is a result of the Big Bang, where from nothingness everything results.

Expressed mathematically the sequence occurs from the divergence of 0 value points into the number line:

(0-->0)-->1,-1

**** 1= .______. --->
**** -1= <--- .______.


(1-->1)--> (2, 1/2, -2, -1/2)

*** 2= .____.____. --->
*** 1/2 = .____. --->
*** -2 <--- .____.____.
*** -1/2 <--- .____.


(1-->2)--> (3, 1/3, -3, -1/3)
*** 3 .____.____.____. --->
*** 1/3 .____. --->
*** -3 <--- .____.____.____.
*** -1/3 <--- .____.





Logically this sequence occurs from an empty assumption into variables:

(• --> •) --> A, -A


(A-->A) --> (B, A/B, -A/B, -B)

(A-->B) --> (C, A/C, -A/C, -C)


Empirically this sequence occurs from one set of qualities into another:

"Mammal" is "Cat"
(A-->B)

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "Wild Cat"
(A-->B)-->C

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "Wild Cat as Fraction of Mammal"
(A-->B)-->A/C

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "Not Wild Cat" (ie wild cat is wild cat, cat may be something else rather than wild)
(A-->B)--> -C

"Mammal" is "Cat" is "not cat is fraction of mammal" (ie cat may be drawing and as such is not mammal)
(A-->B) ---> -A/C


Through the void sequence, as expressions of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion, everything stems from the divergence and reconvergence of a point through which all empirical and abstract being originates. This evolution and involution of points is a multidimensional event creating and recreating all phenomena ranging from the movements of point particles to points of awareness.

This point is both abstract and empirical thus transcending a priori and a posteriori knowledge. It can be reflected through the question: "Does the blind/deaf/dumb/numb man sense anything?", the answer is "space".

The blank slate nature of the man, where an assumption is grounded in an absence of thought, is conducive to a point of view that is intrinsically empty of any and all sensory phenomenon barring space alone. We assume forms from a mode of empty mindedness. This empty mindedness is spatial. For example a line between two points is taken as axiomatic, no thought given, as the axiom itself leaves an imprint on the absence of thought behind this axiom.

The absence of any perceivable form is empty space. All forms, as self evident, are grounded in the emptiness of assumption behind them.

The same nature of empty space, as percieved through the senses, observes nothingness imprinted by being. For example, formless sand taking the form of a glass it is poured into or the rock which leaves an imprint in the sand, both exhibit form imprinting itself on the foundations of formlessness.

The empty nature of space necessitates space is both a priori and a posteriori as the root of both.

A dot dividing into two dots through the line, exists both prior to the senses (in the respect Nothingness self negates, through double negation or self contradiction, into form as a logical statement) and after the senses (the drawing out of one formless point into many points resulting in a form, or the connection of point particles into a form).


Spatial axioms are simultaneously a priori and a posteriori as they can be both proven empirically and through abstraction.

Dually what mediates the abstract and empirical is space.

This is further reflected in the respect that physics breaks down to the interactions of point particles, math with the quantification of points, psychology with points of view. All abstract and empirical phenomenon are reducible to points.

Everything is grounded in the forms created by the convergence/divergence of point space; the Big Bang and Principle of explosion, through the "point", is in a state of superpositioning where it exists in many states at once. The dimensions of abstraction and empricality are superimposed.

This manifestation of multiple states at once necessitates a law of form which transcends beyond both empirical and abstract facets of reality. This necessitates form as a universal law.


If a law is to be universal it must stem across all abstract and empirical realities, thus the law must have a universal form. The law as universal form a and form as universal law necessitates both law and form as one and the same.

It is this superimposed form which necessitates being as multiple dimensions glued together to form a whole.


The continual repitition of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion necessitates a common underlying pattern to all being, forms expand from void and contract back into it; any connection of forms is grounded in a universal expansion and contraction as pure movement be it an empirical or abstract form.

The "explosion" of the Big Bang and Principle of Explosion in logic exists at multiple states where one explosion is superimposed on top of another. With the explosion of one phenomenon comes the entropy/negentropy of another as the cycling of forms, be it abstract or physical.

A sensed form expands into a thought, and vice versa, with the thought contracting into a physical form and viceversa. For example a series of stones expands into the thought of a castle, and the thought of a castle contracts into the actual castle itself. The actual castle inturn expands into further thoughts of the castle and this alternation between abstraction and empiricality continues.

All forms are superimposed upon other forms, just like raindrops are collected and reformed as a stream through the corner of a roof top, so all forms collect and redirect other forms into new forms.

Again The abstraction of castle directs itself into an empirical castle.

What reality consists of is layered forms directing eachother through eachother where what is imagined, ie given image, is projected and aligned to empirical reality and given physical form and vice versa.

This alternation between abstraction and empiricality is underlined by "assumption" itself as being both abstract and empirical.


The nature of assumption, as both abstract and empirical, relies upon a formless state being imprinted by form.

Empirically take sand for example, it takes the imprinting of a rock dropped onto it and the rock, as being worn down by the sand, is inversely imprinted by the sand.

Abstracoccuthe same occurs where the psyche is imprinted by images through which it assumes. The psyche as a blank slate through absense of thought, receives a pattern, is imprinted by it, and then reprojects the pattern into a new form.

The act of inverting one assumption to another occurs through the act of "counting":

1. Division is the inversion of one phenomenon or one set of phenomenon into multiple phenomenon or sets of phenomenon.

2. Basic division starts with counting, basic counting starts with forms, one basic form for reality is the line. This is inherent within the act of counting.

3. If I divide the line or line segment, in half what I do is take one form and turn it into many forms. This is the foundation of counting

4. The inversion of one line (or line segment considering the math community views each differently) into two lines is the inversion of one form into many forms.

5. This division occurs through the application of a 0d point. The 0d point is formless and can be considered "void". It is purely assumed, with all assumption not only being void but fundamentally beginning with void considering the "dot" is purely assumed.

6. One form Inverts to many forms through "voiding" of unity. This voiding of unity results it inverting into multiple unities. We see this with the voiding of one line resulting in many lines which still individually are lines.

7. Thus formlessness, as void, negates form into forms but form always exists.

8. Void thus is nothing in itself, it cannot be observed as nothing is "there" to observe. All we can see are multiple states. Using a glass of water and air as example: half is full of water, half is full of air. The dividing line in the middle observes the inversion of one substance (air or water) into another substance (respectively water or air).

9. Void as formless, is thus indefinite. It cannot be defined much like infinity cannot be defined. Thus it is always voiding itself. The voiding of void is form, as Nothingness is not only a self negating concept that creates a concept of "no-thing" but also perpetually negates form as well.

10. So void voids itself because is not really there, as "form". This may sound like a play on words, but step back and think about it. Infinite(void) 0d points(void) result in the "line".

11. This form is thus infinite as well until it is voided into multiple forms in which case it becomes finite. One line is indefinite, considering the voiding of void is indefinite, until the form is voided into multiple forms. This continual division of lines simultaneously results in the continual multiplication of lines.

12. So to summarize:

A. Void voids itself into form. 0d point cancels itself into line.

B. Void voids form into forms. The line in turn is voids into multiple lines.

C. The continual manifestation of forms results in one set of forms. The line is composed of infinite lines as one set.


This inversion of one form to another, which sets the foundation for counting, and all measurement by default hence reasoning by default, again reflects the dichotomy between what is abstract and what is empirical.

It is this dualism between the abstraction and physical that underlies a common middle context of "form" which binds reality together.

An example of this would be a house.

Does a house gain structure through the materials or the form? It is the form which binds the materials together with space acting as the glue which holds the house together. The house exists because of rectangles and triangles, not because of the wooden beams. Matter is shape.

The same applies to a logical argument, does an argument gain structure through propositions or form? It is the form which binds the propositions together. The argument exists because of linearism, circularity and the point of awareness it represents.

This form occurs through recursion, where one phenomena repeats into another.

Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness. It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being".

It is the dynamic state under which being inverts and repeats into further being, that necessitates assumption as being a process of change within what we considering philosophy and reason as it is a static state defined by philosophy and reason.

Being is a series of movements within movements, with each movement existing as a timezone. A timezone is the summation of parts which exist within further parts as a whole. Time, as definitive, reverts again to dualism between generals and particulars, definition and no definition.

For example, water dripping from a roof is the number of lengths a particle revolves as a series of circumference that unfurl into a line.

Stated in simpler terms a second is a series of revolutions of a particle existing as a series of circumferances. This series of circumferances acts as a series of lines considering the circumferance unravels into a series of lines.

What we consider as movements is multiple lengths of space forming ratios.

These same ratios which form lines are the same linear ratios where a word, as a series of linear definitions, is composed of a further series of progressive definitions. One set of progressive definitions exists inside of another.

Time is a series of linear forms existing within linear forms, and as such is a ratio of spaces. It is this nature of spaces within spaces that time is composed of forms which supercede it.

All movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. The car can only drive in a circle if the form of the circle exists as a glue which holds the movements together.


Form is space which binds reality. This same nature of form as glue occurs through reasoning: an argument exists because it is linear or circular. A progresses to B through a circular recursion of A and a linear voiding into B.

All phenomena are thus grounded in the reoccurrence of forms.

Take for example a rectangle: □

Inversely the shape which space takes through the rectangle is: ■

The form of the rectangle, □, repeats itself through isomorphism as, ■, where ■ is not only the inverse of □ but is a summation of a series of □ which exists much like Russian Mirror Dolls.

Space takes form through form. Form and space are inseperable.

What we understand of reality is forms which exist through forms and this form exists recursively and isomorphically producing further form. Form is movement.

It is this replication and isomorphism of phenomena that deem its truth value as something is deemed real based upon its ability to replicate across time. This is exhibited in basic programming under binary code and the inversion from 1 to 0. It it also expressed within the scientific method as the replication of results, where they hypothesis as unproven inverts into results which are proven. The replication of forms, and their inversion into other forms, necessitates symmetry as order and this order occuring under basic forms which superimpose across reality. For example a car making a zigzag is the repetition of alternating lines from the perspective of a larger timezone.


Replication is the generation of a phenomenon, be it thought, word or deed, which gives precedence to order out of Nothingness under the expansion and contraction of form. In simpler terms, all being, expands and contracts repeated through a point.

It is the inversion of Nothingness into Somethingness allowing for "being" to form an isomorphic relation to "non-being". One form of isomorphism Inverts into another form of isomorphiom: void Inverts to being, and one being Inverts to many being, with both "void to being" and "being to many being" inverting between the other.

This origin of being, represented by the omnipresent point, is the primordial symbol representing the origin of all things.

All symbols and acts of quantification and qualification begin with the expression of the dot which gain there origin beginning with a single point in space. Even the formation of symbols themselves, through drawing or painting, begin with a single point as a dot.

It is the replication of the point which necessitates it as undergoing a cycle through recursion. The progression of one point to another is the progression away from an origin back to its origin.

This cycling through repetition necessitates the circle as a symbol of maintenance representing the repetition of phenomena that gives precedence to order. That which repeats exists through a symmetry across time and space much like a habit that gives identity. We deem something as true based upon its ability to replicate, be it ones character through habit, scientific truths or the replication of lines to form a rectangle.

This inversion of one point to another is thus represented by the line. Symbolically it represents intelligence, under the nature of analysis ,where one phenomena progresses to another. This progress from one phenomena through another dually shows all phenomena as connected by an inherent middle of the phenomena itself where each phenomena is intrinsically empty of itself. Thus the line, representing intelligence, dually shows the connection of phenomena.


Truth is "existence", with many grades of truth being the movement away or from a center point of being. This centerpoint can be called "God", with the circumferance being the range of being which extends from and through the "Creator".

The convergence and divergence of points (of view) within philosophy, from a single point (of awareness) gives a deeper analysis to the nature of definition. This deeper analysis, grounded in the simple convergence and divergence of the point, reflects all truth as being expressed through geometric forms.

Just like 1 point takes the same form as an infinite number of points (insert image) , so defintion takes the same manner in reasoning.


One assumption is broken down into so many assumptions, that proof begins to take the same form as the original assertion thus becoming an assertion again. This is a paradox of definition, as things become more defined they become less defined as a result.

The failure of definition in philosophy has been in establishing principles that do not observe their own properties as asserted propositions. It is the absence of self referentiality in philosophi which causes its problems. To add further paradox to paradox, the foundations of philosophy under metaphysics as "being qua being", observes this recursive nature of self assuming forms as inherent within its nature.

Considering all of philosophy begins with propositions, which are assumed, the failure in acknowledging propositions as assumed is a failure to tackle the problem of "assumption" in depth, thus leaving a gaping theoretical hole which regresses back to the paradoxical "point" of it, "the point".

Look at any philosophical argument or theory and the premise always begins with an assumption, this act of assuming is ignored for fear of observing an absence of foundation. This couldn't be more false, as the assumption of assumptions sets a circular context as a grounding where form, through assumption, is first and foremost.

The continual regression of assumptions leads to all facts broken down to exist as atomic facts. These atomic facts, as points of observation, are reduced to further points of observation.

The breaking down of points into points necessitates the point of observation as an intrinsic glue to logic. The subject-object dichotomy is false in light of deduction. The point of awareness, as a boundless formless space, is the recursion of one point of view into another point of view as a point particle or atomic fact.

This recunecess and isomorphism of points, necessitates that when determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective. This point of awareness can begin with any proposition as the point of awareness underlies all phenomena through recursion.

Paradoxically there are no formal rules for deciding this other than the inversion of one perspective to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.

This leaves "isomorphism" and "recursion" as universal principles embodied through an ever present context of awareness. The convergence and divergence of phenomena into points necessitates a sort of omnipresence under the point. Any deep analysis observes the same process repeated: something is broken down into a point again and again. Abstractions and empirical senses are intuitively directed to a center point continuously.

Thus the most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me" or "the pattern I assumed aligned with other patterns I assumed" with the point being the empty context through which we observe reality under a continual imprinting.

It is the assumption and resumption of patterns that reflect "comprehensibility" as the ability to connect assumed patterns through prior patterns we assumed.

Yet "comprehensibilty" is the prerequisite to "incomprehensibility".

What is well defined and clear is made so in order to break the definition down into something unclear and vague. Clarity is unity, multiplicity is vagueness. The assumption of one set of patterns Inverts into a series of newer patterns under the inversive nature of observation through the point of awareness. The formless nature of the point inverts our set of forms into another.

In making terms simple they become complicated. In making things complicated they become simple. The act of definition is thus grounded in a revolution between one and many terms where something is broken apart and put back together.

Philosophy and science are thus alchemical, this alchemy is the convergence and divergence of points as the putting together and tearing apart of definition.

It is the creation and recreation of definitions which causes philosophy to crumble under the gravity of terms alone. What defined one assumption, through another, eventually becomes a series of assumptions which causes the meaning of the original assumption to crumble.

Propositions are the summation of relations between parts. Under this definition all word creation, as the summation of relations between words, differs little from proposition creation; both principles and words are the application of boundary to a previously formless phenomenon.

There is no propposition defining how to make propositions, beyond this aforementioned alchemy of thought.

Proposition creation is not subject to any proposition without referring back to an inherently empty assumption, therefore an empty proposition.

Thus what we understand as a proposition is a group assertion or the projection of some self reflected thought. It is the alignment as symmetry of subjective states under a recursive common bond. In simpler terms, a group of people see something which reflects across their subjective experiences as common and this in turn allows for objectivity.

This group alignment of points of view reflects geometrically as an alignment of points considering the same emptiness of the point in geometry mirrors the assumptive nature of the mind as empty of thought.


It is the alternation between converging and diverging forms that philosophy lies within a dualism between obscurity and lucidity under this alternation between "oneness" and "manyness".


It is through this dualism that obscurity and lucidity synthesize into "as is-ness". At best philosophy, and the sciences by proxy, can provide definition that is strictly assumed.

In turn these assumptions are the summation of forms into a single point as a "perspective" or empirical "particle". Either way these summations result in a "point".

A series of phenomena are defined within a phenomenon with this summation being a self-referential loop through what it contains.

For example the variable of B is composed of A self referencing into a new form, the parts of a dog (such as legs, teeth and hair) self referencing into a new form such as a cat, or 3 being composed of 1 added together self-referentially.

Rationality is fundamental a spiral represented by loop creation. Under these terms all being is connected by context alone.

Philosophy, and the sciences and religions by proxy, under it's own terms is always problematic.
It deals with the continual definition and redefinition of assumptions which occur in cycles. At best philosophy, and its off branches of knowledge, becomes the art of painting pictures with words and as such is an art that is an expression of a subjective state of affairs as an angle of observation.

The paradox of all of this is that what we know is grounded in paradox, through these ever branching dichotomies with these dichotomies being grounded in the dualism between isomorphism and recurssion.

The nature of paradox within philosophy again necessitates isomorphism as a general principle: all thesis' result in a symmetrical antithesis as an inversion of the thesis. The isomorphism of isomorphism is recurssion, where the inversive change of isomorphism is antithetical to the continual repitition of recursion. Dually this repitition of isomorphism, between thesis and antithesis, again necessitates a second universal principle of recursion within philosophy.

The isomorphism between thesis and antithesis, in philosophy, and this reptition as recursion, necessitates a third principle of philosophy being the creation of empty loops as contexts. Philosophy is context creation as asserted loops which invert to further loops.

These loops as contexts, as a universal phenomena, breaks down to a hyper primitive underlying logic which can mean just about anything due to a problem of syntax. Context inverting to an opposing symmetrical context, and then repeating leaves no real syntax for understanding the underlying rules for any logical argument other than principles of isomorphism and recurssion which can be applied to just about anything.

The only syntax is form, and this form is a progressive loop. This looping begins within basic arithmetic but reflects elsewhere. For example, all arithmetic foundations are tautological and circular:

1. The subtraction of subtraction is addition through double negation:

(-1-1=-2)=(-1+-1=-2)



2. Division is further the subtraction of subtraction, as the number of times x may be subtracted until point zero is reached:

(6/3=2) = (6-3-3=0)



3. The addition of addition is the number of times x may be added to another:

(3×2=6) = (2+2+2=6)

The only syntax rule is a circularity, yet syntax rules would require a regress outside the system leading to a variation of Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel's incompleteness theorem in simple terms states all rules are defined by an outside set of rules which are undefined.

However if syntax is to be grounded in circularity the rules would have to be self referencing, and a context within context observes this, thus the framework would have to be descriptive by nature.

This descriptive nature again would be a loop.

As self referencing it would be subject to double positives and double negative simultaneously, as both are selfreferential loops by nature. Double positives lead to a negative, and double negatives lead to a positive. One rule is an isomorphism of the other, with both being grounded in a proof through contradiction whose self referentiality lies in recursion.

Double negatives are the foundation for all math and logic.

-1-1=-2 results in the first act of addition where addition results from self reference of negative numbers as subtraction. Addition is the subtraction of subtraction.

(-P --> -P) --> (P-->P) --> (Q --> (-P --> -P))... occurs simultaneously in logic, where negative P and negative P negate into positive P with P inverting back into a simultaneous negative P due to Q containing antithetical elements as to what P is not.

Recursion of negatives is the foundation of math and logic.

Dually double positives occur: The repitition of positives necessitates a negative.

This occurs within the basic number line as well.

1 and 1 have 0 distance between them...this is the first thesis/thesis as antithesis.

1 and 1 necessitate 0 when counting it on a number line.

1 and 2 have one line between them where this number is -1 if the numbers are to be equal. The variation of 1 into 2 necessitates 2 is a grade of 1 as it is composed of 1...it is a fragment of 1 strictly by observing a number line as multiple 1 line segments. The difference between a positive 1 and a positive 2 is negative one.

The same occurs for the difference between a positive 1 and positive 3...a negative two.

The same occurs for 3 and 7...-4

So a positive and a positive, requires a variation of the original positive into grades, with the grades as different due to a seperation necessitating antithetical or negative elements.

An example using the number line would be you have 3 progressing to 7. 7 is a variation of 1, thus when it goes from 7 to 1 (right to left just like the negative number line) you have -4 as superpositioned within the positive number line.

Another example, previously stated:

"The Goodest Good necessitates Evil."

(G-->G) --> (-G=E)

Or

((G)G) --> (-G)

If there is a good and this good is greater than another good, then this good not only observes itself repeated in a variation but that some goods are greater than others due to a variation of contexts.

Good as a degree necessitates good as less than another good, thereby observing that this degree of good has antithetical properties of "not good" or "evil".

Good in a state of multiple degrees shows Good as being intrinsically negated, thus a positive (or thesis) as directed towards another positive (thesis) results in its antiththetical nature.


The rule of double positives and double negatives are grounded in the same thing until contradiction occurs, much in the same manner the voiding of void results in the Big Bang, the contradiction of contradiction results in the Principle of Explosion, as well as the assumption of assumption (through metaphysics as "being qua being") results in the form of all knowledge as we see fit.

It is this nature of regressive contexts that a primative underlying logic occurs. Cycling back to the question of syntax in determining the validity of rules behind logic we are left with contexts as loops. All truth, as both existing and "existence as is", is context.

In determining a syntax for the rules of a logical system derived from context alone leaves us with a very general logic which can mean just about anything as it underlies everything. A logic describing everything would paradoxically mean just about nothing...at least almost nothing, as it still models the most basic nature of logic, that of description.


So in forming this basic logic, considering the nature of truth is subject to context, the primary symbols would be:

"( )" for "context"
"{ }" for "context of contexts"
"[ ]" for "transitional context"
"/" "modality of context"
"-->" for "transition of one context to another"
"•" as the "fundamental variable"


A simple statement such as "The cat eats cat food therefore we bought cat food" would be expressed as:

{(Cat) [eats-->](Food/Cat)}

-->{(We)[Bought-->](Cat/Food)}

Or "The sky is blue"
(Sky)[is-->](Blue)


Or for math

1+2=3
{+1-->(+1-->+1)}-->+3

4÷2=2
(+4/+2) --> +2


All inference and implication shows a probabilistic nature this is considering inference and implication shows what may occur therefore; would be expressed as modalities as all modalities are fractions and fractals. A modality as descriptive is a fractal by nature as what is expressed is one context existing as a part of another.

"The cat eating the food implies the cat is hungry"
{(C/E)(F)}/(C/H)

The logic is primitive yet seems to represent the basic underlying form of all propositions. It cannot seem to break it down to any deeper basics unless viewing it from a perspective of Geometry.

This geometry can be expressed through the nature of time where all logical assertions are ratios of time. "The cat ate the bird in January" observes each assertion, that forms the proposition, as a context within a context as a series of contexts that act like a line within a line:

(C)[[A-->]J]

It is in breaking down any definitive statement into a geometry where the rules become so general they can mean just about anything. Cycling back to the paradox of definition priorly stated, with the increase in definition in one respect comes the complete absence of it in another.


-----------


Now this next argument will be completely absurd and most will not understand how absurd it really is.

If we are to look at the nature of any logical or mathematical system, it is grounded in assumed axioms. "Assumption" is the grounding of logic and math, but thus necessitates a paradox where this is a foundation.

Thus the only logical foundation we can assume without contradiction is assumption as a form where the argument can only be defined as assumable if it has a given form, "given form" is a key wording.

Certain things can be shown but not said, but in showing them we put boundaries on them and effectively cause a contradiction to occur. I can say "dog" but this does not necessarily exist as a full truth as to what "dog" is or is not.

The same applies to any formal system of logic, it is contradictory by it's own nature of description but the formal system still exists. Thus all logical systems are by default paradoxical and are simultaneously true and false.

The mapping of any formal system, through symbols, is grounded in the base symbols which underlie all assumed axioms of logic and logic by default. Form acts as the binding glue of logic, and reality by default.

The highest most universal abstraction, with highest meaning an underlying centerpoint from which all things stem, is a contextual loop. It can be subject to language but not limited to it. Any higher language would have to underlie all possible languages, in which case we are left with a loop between the languages and we ironically go back to a language emphasizing context again.

In trying to escape language we use a series of symbols to emphasize it.The pointing of one phenomenon to another is the primary rule of symbol attachment. Symbols are directional by nature. As directional they represent the projection of one point of view to another point of view, one phenomenon connecting to another.

Context cannot seem to be escaped from without creating an ultimate context. If all being is composed of a loop, then the highest abstraction is the monad as a symbol ⊙ with all grammar being a variation of it. This contextual form arranges what is finite and temporal.

From a perspective of temporality all movement in time is dependent upon a form which exists above time. For example a car driving in a circle requires the circle, as the summation of the car's movements within a given time zone, to literally glue the car's movements together. Form is space which binds reality.

This applies to the foundation of logic as well.

Form is the glue of being derived from point space, all phenomenon are the expansion and contraction of a point with the point representing the height of pure form in one respect, pure formlessness in another. The point is the underlying median which holds reality together. Relative to logic this point is best represented through the "assumption" as a point of view.



Assumption = •
Continuum of assumptions = --->
Cycling of assumptions = ⊙
Assumption as Context= ( )

1. •
2. • ---> •
3. •⊙•
4. (•)•
5. (• ---> •)• ---> (•⊙•)•
6. (• ---> •)• ⊙ (•⊙•)•
7. ((•)•)•
8. (--->)•
9. ((--->)• ---> (--->)•)•
10. (⊙)•
11. ((⊙)• ⊙ (⊙)•)•
12. •

1. This is an assumption.

2. This assumption progresses to another assumption.

3. The progression of the original assumption, as a new assumption, is the assumption cycling itself.

4. This is an assumption of assumption.

5. This progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this progresses to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

6. The progression of one assumption to another is an assumption, this cycles to the assumption that all assumptions cycle.

7. This is progressive assumption.

8. Multiple assumptions are progressive, this progress is assumed.

9. Multiple assumptions as progressive progress to multiple assumptions that are progressive.

10. This assumption of multiple progression is circular and is assumed.

11. The assumption of circularity circulates with the assumption of circularity as an assumption.

12. This argument is assumed and defined as self referential but open to expansion. It is both complete and incomplete as assumed.


In mapping logic at it most basic form, logic becomes indefinite as it equates to a series of variables which can mean just about anything, with this meaning being grounded in form alone.

This form, as variables by nature point to the paradox as to what a variable is and is not.


1. All assumptions are variables, as they represent general statements.

2. A cat is a variable, as it is composed of other types of cats. So is a tree. So is the word "word".

3. If I assume an experience I assume a generalized state of things (sensations, emotions, thoughts) that are composed of particulars that are not being observed. For example the experience of touching a table does not take into account how it was formed, the actual atomic movements or its place in the future...these assumptions are strictly images produced based upon the connection of prior experiences which are assumed.

4. All logical symbols, as such, act as variables. They are composed of other symbols and compose other symbols. They are generalities of transition, with each symbol as fundamentally empty being transitory to another symbol.

5. Each variable as a generality, is a particular which composes another generalized state, thus each variable is strictly empty in and of itself as a context. This necessitates it as a function of transition to another variable, thus all variables are inversive by nature.

For example, +1 is a generality. However it is a particular which composes +1+1=2, +1+2=3, +2+3=+5...etc. Thus it is a transitive state in itself considering it is always inverting from one state to another. +1 is always transitioning into more complex variations of itself, thus is continually inversive from one state to another.

6. Each variable as a particular, is a generality which exists in multiple states and is repeated, thus each variable is strictly is an inherent middle as underlying context of another context. This necessitates is as a form of transition to another variable, thus all variables are recursive by nature.

For example, +1 as a particular is a generality as it is composed of +10 - 9, +10.1 - 9,...etc. It is composed of an infinite number of particulars and as such is an underlying form of many transitive states. +1 is always present as an underlying form of continuity as a general state due to its repetition.

7. All assumptions as both form and functions are inherently variables that necessitate an underlying order that manifests spontaneously and as random through a continual variation of the same thing. Logic is spontaneous as it is grounded in assumptions.

Statements such as A=A or 1+1=2 are fundamentally random, but are ordered as self referencing contexts through recurssion.

A=A can mean anything, with "A" = "Anything" necessitating all phenomena are subject to equivocation....

....while 1+1=2 being the quantifying of any phenomena such as a dot, to a dolphin-hippomatus-turtle hybrid with fire breathing cannons coming out of it fingers, to They're nasty and evil, to the number of words in a sentence.

8. Logic and math are thus always indefinite and definite at the same time as all variables are simultaneously generals and particulates. This same nature applies to philosophy where any answer is best defined "as is".


It is the nature of the dualism between general and particulate, vagueness and clarity, where philosophy's "as is-ness", expressed through the tautology, where the geometric mapping of tautologies as linear strings undergo a deeper meta circularity

All progressive tautologies result in a variable that represents the tautology itself, for example:

A results in B with B being a recursion of A.

(A-->A)-->B

B results in C, with C being a recurssion of A through B:
(A--> B)-->C

(((A-->A) --> B) --> C) ---> ....) results in a recursion of A as: (((A--> (A-->A)) ---> (A-->A-->A))...) thus each progression of a variable represents a progress of A as a string. Each variable is a progressive string.

As the variable progresses so does the string. A as self referencing through an infinite recursion result in the string progressing simultaneously to
A as it progresses to a new variable: (((A-->A) --> B) --> C) ---> ....) ---> A

All variables are both singular variables and strings of variables, thus all variables exist simultaneously as atomic facts and strings. A is both an individual variable and a string of variables and exists in a simultaneously dualistic state synonymous to the particle-wave dualism:
(((A--> (A-->A)) ---> (A-->A-->A))...) --->A

A progressive string is a progress to the underlying variable which forms it:
(((A--> (A-->A)) ---> (A-->A-->A))...) --->A

This looping between the variable of the tautology and the tautology as a variable summate philosophy as purely context manipulation where philosophy itself is a context, amidst the science/religions and philosophies best represented as "(A)" in reference to the primary equations presented earlier. Under these terms, all variables as contexts are center points for all variables.

All contexts as the centerpoint for further contexts necessitate all contexts as equivocating to another context through an underlying context. These are meta contexts, through recursion (assumptive law of inherent middle), that underlie all other contexts.

Meta relativistic contexts allow for equivocation of seemingly unequal numbers.

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity. The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A) 1=0
(0) = 1( )


B) 1=2
(1(0)) = 1( )1( )
(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2
(0(0)) = 1( )1( )




C) 2=3
((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )


c) 0=3
((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c1) 1 = 3
(3) = 1( )


D) 4=3
((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )

d) 0=4
((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

d1) 1=4
(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4
((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

Again, a number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context.

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise.


Everything reduced to context, necessitates all definition as inherently relative. Relativity is absolute considering what is absolute is the identity of the context as a context.

To say truth is relative is to assert there are certain contexts which always align with other contexts. This alignment necessitates absolute truth as existing. The context as having any secondary nature to truth is in itself a context, thus what we understand of context is the inversion of one context to another, causing one context is exist recursively through another.

When determining truth we are always left with a beginning point perspective and there are no formal rules for deciding this other than inversion to another perspective and the replication of it in a new manner.

Pure geometric forms underleye all abstract and empirical being as being in itself is form which exists "as is"

In these respects, to cycle back to the original definition, all reduces to a common point, line and circle expressed through a spiral.