Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 28, 2020 18:36:23 GMT
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.
Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. 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 words 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. 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 = .____. --->
*** -1 <--- .____.____.
*** -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.
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.
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.
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.
Philosophy is the art of inverting one assertion into many and many assertions into one. 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 words 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. 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 = .____. --->
*** -1 <--- .____.____.
*** -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.
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.
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.
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.