Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2020 17:10:47 GMT
VOID
All experience is grounded in the assumption of forms, where a form is imprinted within the emptiness of the psyche. This emptiness is the absence of form which expands across both the consciousness, along with the subconsciousness by default, and the vastness of being. Void is the common median between that which is sensed abstractly or that which is sensed empirically.
Each form is a loop and as a loop maintains an intrinsic emptiness of form contained within it. All forms manifests this nature as a loop through multiple degrees.
1. It is a loop in the respect one phenomenon manifests through repetition across time and space. This repetition is the cycling of a phenomenon. This repetition of the phenomenon, as a cycling, is the containment of an intrinsic void through the movement across a void. This movement is one phenomenon existing in multiple states as a continuum. For example the movement of a particle from position A to position B is the containment of void where each repeated particle, as a new position, contains void between them. Void is contained through the same phenomenon existing in multiple states.
2. It is also a loop as its given outline always resorts to a loop. This is considering the tracing of any one form always results in the end as the same place as the beginning. For example the tracing of the shape of a man results in a loop considering the beginning trace at the head results in the trace ending in the same position it began. The overall form of a man is that of a loop, however this applies to any empirical form.
3. Finally it is always a loop given its identity of A=A, logically, is a loop. The assertion has the same beginning as it does the end. The assertion, of A=A, is defined further through a series of assertions it contains as part of its definition such as B=B, C=C, etc., thus one loop contains many. Logical statements necessitate one assertion as existing through many, thus while one loop of A=A represents one degree of looping, the repetition of one assertion through many assertions is another degree of loop reflective of point 1.
As assumed, form is imprinted upon the psyche and is repeated. This constitutes the "I". The "I", as composed of patterns, is a series of repeated patterns with each pattern as a loop as well as the repetition being a process of looping itself. This form, as existing through a loop as a loop, is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena.
All phenomena, as loops, act as filters to how we assume further patterns. Our psyche assumes patterns based upon priorly assumed patterns. These prior patterns, as empty considering they are loops, assume further patterns base upon what aligns with one pattern and which does not. Alignment is the repetition of a single form across a myriad of forms thus necessitating an underlying common base. This common base, where one form exists in multiple states, in itself is a loop.
The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns. For example, the pattern of "mammal" contains similar forms along a series of organisms that align across a continuum of said organisms. This similarities of forms is an alignment of forms across a series of phenomenon. The absence of similarities is an absence of alignment. What determines the alignment of forms is the similarities and differences that compose the forms as further sub forms. Forms align through further forms which compose it. Each form is a set of loops within loops.
This applies abstractly, as well, within the realm of logic. The circular nature of A=A contains within its definition a series of further assertions such as B=B, C=C, etc. with each assertion being a variation of the original assertion. Each assertion aligns to a further assertion based upon its similarities and differences.
All assumption is a process of experience, this experience is a process of imprinting.
Experience is the subjective nature to how we assume patterns where a series of patterns is imprinted within the "I" which is composed of a series of priorly existing patterns. The "I" is a series of loops which operating through a form of looping between the subject and object. A form is presented. It is assumed and further projected as another pattern and then reassumed. One loop is looped through many loops. Our ability to assume is what defines the self at any given moment. We are what we assume and the angle of assumption, as the angle of observation, necessitates subjectivity as being fundamentally bias.
All philosophy is inherently bias. This bias is rooted in the inherent subjective angles a subject is subject to. This bias necessitates an absence of progression except through the points of view already established as the bias itself.
Philosophical discussion is less about progressing past a viewpoint and more as the progression of an already established angle of observation. Even supposedly new "viewpoints" are mere variations of underlying viewpoints already established but underdeveloped.
It it this angle of observation that maintains itself as fundamentally the root of all philosophical dialect as the dialect itself. Two, or more, viewpoints converge for a period of time only to progressively diverge and reconverge over the topics established. Philosophy thus becomes a synthetic cycling between premises. This however paradoxically lends itself to a viewpoint that supersedes the actions of philosophy as a whole and thus summating them under a single viewpoint. This singular viewpoint, as the summation of a series of viewpoints, creates a paradox as no antithetical element to it can be presented other than a simple "no it is not true". An antiperspectivism stance is promoted, yet this in itself is a perspective, thus a contradiction occurs.
Philosophy is thus contradiction by its very nature, with the root of all contradictions occuring through the dualistic nature of dialectic itself. Philosophy becomes less a solution of contradictions as it becomes more of a promotion of contradiction for contradictions sake. The prime axiom of philosophy itself is contradiction through dialectic where solutions are less the anticipated course of philosophy but rather the maintainance of already held positions in the face of a antithetical state.
The prime purpose of philosophy reflects a form of self discovery, where the subjective point of view is reinforced against everything it is not. Philosophy thus takes the role of exploring a respective void where the already established point of view is tested and retested, in the face of continual obliteration, to reveal what goes on underneath. This void is the root of the division where both perspectives, those which occur through the dialectic, cycle between eachother on the precipice of "being". Dialectic is thus rooted in a Nothingness that all discourse hovers around leading philosophy as a dynamic state of revealing the interior nuances of an already established bias.
There is no solution to the "philosophical problem" as the problem itself is the very same solution that underlies all philosophical discourse. "The problem" is maintained as self evident because what is not self evident is what lies beneath "the problem". All axioms thus reflect a nature of being as problematic as they are the means of dividing a proposition into further propositions in an effort to promote change. This change is less of a change from one bias to another but the promotion of change within the bias itself.
The change from one bias to a more complex bias is the reflection of "being", that which exists through the perspective of the observer, in the face of a complete voiding of that very same "being". Philosophy thus takes a role as a self reflective property through the surgical analysis presented through voiding. What voids a proposition is that which expands that very same axiom into a newer state of being. Dialectic thus takes the form of bias renewal with this bias renewal further necessitating that perspectives themselves, or one could say the core propositions behind those perspectives, are grounded in a dynamic change that leaves them as fundamentally formless assertions at their root point.
The dialectic thus takes the role of revealing what lies underneath the subconscious and giving it conscious form. It may even be taken a step further and said that the dialectic takes the role of revealing where the intended proposition is fundamentally empty of form and takes on a spontaneous nature. This spontaneous nature, where the bias proposition is broken down to its core root, thus subjects the bias as a product of chance with this chance being the spontaneity of the order resulting from the build up of said proposition.
The dialectic's means go far beyond finding and renewing the root of a bias proposition and goes well into the nature of its order as subject to a game of chance in which a viewpoint occurs because it is statistically inevitable to occur. Being, as an expression of the propositions which form it, thus takes on a nature of probabalism where a viewpoint is expressed as a statistical inevitability in light of a whole range of propositions. This nature of chance, as statistical inevitability, reflects a deep underlying nature of causality or determinism that results in the viewpoint itself.
One bias results in another bias and what occurs is a series of ever expanding spirals of reasoning, all different in content yet sharing the exact same form from which they originate. A proposition is halved into a thetical and antithetical element with this halving in turn occuring again and again to any possible synthesis which results from its prior state. The dialectic thus takes the form of proposition division, where each proposition (a bias perspective by default) is broken down into qualitative quantities of either a dualism or a triad. While the propositions may differ, what does not differ is their reduction into this dualism or triad. Even more complex propositions, that which results in four, five or six further propositions, is still subject to this dualism or triad as a dualism of triads, a dualism of dualisms, a triad of dualisms or a triad of triads.
The same statistical inevitability of a bias being expressed due to the play out of all possibilities still relegates itself to qualitative quantities. This division of the proposition occurs through its self expression in the face of a dialectical opposition which seeks to annihilate it. This potential annihilation acts as the form of division which reforms the basic proposition by breaking it down to its base roots and rebuilding it back into a whole. For every proposition that is broken down, a series of dualistic or triadic propositions come in is place thus relegating philosophy to a cycling and recycling of propositions. The original bias state is thus reamplified through an expanded newer and newer form until the sheer magnitude of propositions, stemming from the original propositions, shatters the original proposition and a point 0 in knowledge occurs.
The grounding of all arguments is founded in the premise. The premise however has no formal system in determining its introduction other than the assertion by the observer. The premise is subject to the angle of the observer. This angle of the observer is the formalism itself in determining which phenomena act as a premise and which do not.
As a formalism, the angle of the observer has a thetical and antithetical element. The thetical is that which is observed through the observer. The antithetical is that which is not observed through the observer.
Premises are thus determined by a dualism between what is observed and what is not observed. This dualism forms the angle of observation itself where what is observed is a series of continuums which intersect at the point of non observation. It is the series of continuums which form observation itself and the absence of continuums which reflect an absense of observation.
All arguments, as subject to the angle of the observer, are thus grounded in continuums with these continuums acting as the premise. Considering the premise of an argument has no set formalisms in determining what acts as the premise and what does not, the formalism of the premise is always a continuum. Formalism is continuity of the premise from one state into another however there is no formalism in determining which premise one begins with other than continuum itself. In these respects all premises, as subject to the point of the observer, are random in respect to subject, but formalized as continuums.
This continuum is the process of definition.
The volume of words is premised upon one thing expressed in a variety of ways. One phenomena as replicating does so as an adaptation to its inherent void. For example "x" has one meaning. This meaning is empty in and of itself thus it progresses to "y" where the relationship of "x" and "y" form eachother. "Y" and "x" are both empty on their own terms thus progressed to "z".
This emptiness is grounded in the circularity of the phenomenon where "x is x", "y is y", "x is y" and "y is x". Each term is an empty loop, and as an empty loop is determined by what phenomenon they progress to. This progression is the the process of definition where one word inverts to another symmetrical word allowing for the repetition of the original word.
All experience is grounded in the assumption of forms, where a form is imprinted within the emptiness of the psyche. This emptiness is the absence of form which expands across both the consciousness, along with the subconsciousness by default, and the vastness of being. Void is the common median between that which is sensed abstractly or that which is sensed empirically.
Each form is a loop and as a loop maintains an intrinsic emptiness of form contained within it. All forms manifests this nature as a loop through multiple degrees.
1. It is a loop in the respect one phenomenon manifests through repetition across time and space. This repetition is the cycling of a phenomenon. This repetition of the phenomenon, as a cycling, is the containment of an intrinsic void through the movement across a void. This movement is one phenomenon existing in multiple states as a continuum. For example the movement of a particle from position A to position B is the containment of void where each repeated particle, as a new position, contains void between them. Void is contained through the same phenomenon existing in multiple states.
2. It is also a loop as its given outline always resorts to a loop. This is considering the tracing of any one form always results in the end as the same place as the beginning. For example the tracing of the shape of a man results in a loop considering the beginning trace at the head results in the trace ending in the same position it began. The overall form of a man is that of a loop, however this applies to any empirical form.
3. Finally it is always a loop given its identity of A=A, logically, is a loop. The assertion has the same beginning as it does the end. The assertion, of A=A, is defined further through a series of assertions it contains as part of its definition such as B=B, C=C, etc., thus one loop contains many. Logical statements necessitate one assertion as existing through many, thus while one loop of A=A represents one degree of looping, the repetition of one assertion through many assertions is another degree of loop reflective of point 1.
As assumed, form is imprinted upon the psyche and is repeated. This constitutes the "I". The "I", as composed of patterns, is a series of repeated patterns with each pattern as a loop as well as the repetition being a process of looping itself. This form, as existing through a loop as a loop, is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena.
All phenomena, as loops, act as filters to how we assume further patterns. Our psyche assumes patterns based upon priorly assumed patterns. These prior patterns, as empty considering they are loops, assume further patterns base upon what aligns with one pattern and which does not. Alignment is the repetition of a single form across a myriad of forms thus necessitating an underlying common base. This common base, where one form exists in multiple states, in itself is a loop.
The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns. For example, the pattern of "mammal" contains similar forms along a series of organisms that align across a continuum of said organisms. This similarities of forms is an alignment of forms across a series of phenomenon. The absence of similarities is an absence of alignment. What determines the alignment of forms is the similarities and differences that compose the forms as further sub forms. Forms align through further forms which compose it. Each form is a set of loops within loops.
This applies abstractly, as well, within the realm of logic. The circular nature of A=A contains within its definition a series of further assertions such as B=B, C=C, etc. with each assertion being a variation of the original assertion. Each assertion aligns to a further assertion based upon its similarities and differences.
All assumption is a process of experience, this experience is a process of imprinting.
Experience is the subjective nature to how we assume patterns where a series of patterns is imprinted within the "I" which is composed of a series of priorly existing patterns. The "I" is a series of loops which operating through a form of looping between the subject and object. A form is presented. It is assumed and further projected as another pattern and then reassumed. One loop is looped through many loops. Our ability to assume is what defines the self at any given moment. We are what we assume and the angle of assumption, as the angle of observation, necessitates subjectivity as being fundamentally bias.
All philosophy is inherently bias. This bias is rooted in the inherent subjective angles a subject is subject to. This bias necessitates an absence of progression except through the points of view already established as the bias itself.
Philosophical discussion is less about progressing past a viewpoint and more as the progression of an already established angle of observation. Even supposedly new "viewpoints" are mere variations of underlying viewpoints already established but underdeveloped.
It it this angle of observation that maintains itself as fundamentally the root of all philosophical dialect as the dialect itself. Two, or more, viewpoints converge for a period of time only to progressively diverge and reconverge over the topics established. Philosophy thus becomes a synthetic cycling between premises. This however paradoxically lends itself to a viewpoint that supersedes the actions of philosophy as a whole and thus summating them under a single viewpoint. This singular viewpoint, as the summation of a series of viewpoints, creates a paradox as no antithetical element to it can be presented other than a simple "no it is not true". An antiperspectivism stance is promoted, yet this in itself is a perspective, thus a contradiction occurs.
Philosophy is thus contradiction by its very nature, with the root of all contradictions occuring through the dualistic nature of dialectic itself. Philosophy becomes less a solution of contradictions as it becomes more of a promotion of contradiction for contradictions sake. The prime axiom of philosophy itself is contradiction through dialectic where solutions are less the anticipated course of philosophy but rather the maintainance of already held positions in the face of a antithetical state.
The prime purpose of philosophy reflects a form of self discovery, where the subjective point of view is reinforced against everything it is not. Philosophy thus takes the role of exploring a respective void where the already established point of view is tested and retested, in the face of continual obliteration, to reveal what goes on underneath. This void is the root of the division where both perspectives, those which occur through the dialectic, cycle between eachother on the precipice of "being". Dialectic is thus rooted in a Nothingness that all discourse hovers around leading philosophy as a dynamic state of revealing the interior nuances of an already established bias.
There is no solution to the "philosophical problem" as the problem itself is the very same solution that underlies all philosophical discourse. "The problem" is maintained as self evident because what is not self evident is what lies beneath "the problem". All axioms thus reflect a nature of being as problematic as they are the means of dividing a proposition into further propositions in an effort to promote change. This change is less of a change from one bias to another but the promotion of change within the bias itself.
The change from one bias to a more complex bias is the reflection of "being", that which exists through the perspective of the observer, in the face of a complete voiding of that very same "being". Philosophy thus takes a role as a self reflective property through the surgical analysis presented through voiding. What voids a proposition is that which expands that very same axiom into a newer state of being. Dialectic thus takes the form of bias renewal with this bias renewal further necessitating that perspectives themselves, or one could say the core propositions behind those perspectives, are grounded in a dynamic change that leaves them as fundamentally formless assertions at their root point.
The dialectic thus takes the role of revealing what lies underneath the subconscious and giving it conscious form. It may even be taken a step further and said that the dialectic takes the role of revealing where the intended proposition is fundamentally empty of form and takes on a spontaneous nature. This spontaneous nature, where the bias proposition is broken down to its core root, thus subjects the bias as a product of chance with this chance being the spontaneity of the order resulting from the build up of said proposition.
The dialectic's means go far beyond finding and renewing the root of a bias proposition and goes well into the nature of its order as subject to a game of chance in which a viewpoint occurs because it is statistically inevitable to occur. Being, as an expression of the propositions which form it, thus takes on a nature of probabalism where a viewpoint is expressed as a statistical inevitability in light of a whole range of propositions. This nature of chance, as statistical inevitability, reflects a deep underlying nature of causality or determinism that results in the viewpoint itself.
One bias results in another bias and what occurs is a series of ever expanding spirals of reasoning, all different in content yet sharing the exact same form from which they originate. A proposition is halved into a thetical and antithetical element with this halving in turn occuring again and again to any possible synthesis which results from its prior state. The dialectic thus takes the form of proposition division, where each proposition (a bias perspective by default) is broken down into qualitative quantities of either a dualism or a triad. While the propositions may differ, what does not differ is their reduction into this dualism or triad. Even more complex propositions, that which results in four, five or six further propositions, is still subject to this dualism or triad as a dualism of triads, a dualism of dualisms, a triad of dualisms or a triad of triads.
The same statistical inevitability of a bias being expressed due to the play out of all possibilities still relegates itself to qualitative quantities. This division of the proposition occurs through its self expression in the face of a dialectical opposition which seeks to annihilate it. This potential annihilation acts as the form of division which reforms the basic proposition by breaking it down to its base roots and rebuilding it back into a whole. For every proposition that is broken down, a series of dualistic or triadic propositions come in is place thus relegating philosophy to a cycling and recycling of propositions. The original bias state is thus reamplified through an expanded newer and newer form until the sheer magnitude of propositions, stemming from the original propositions, shatters the original proposition and a point 0 in knowledge occurs.
The grounding of all arguments is founded in the premise. The premise however has no formal system in determining its introduction other than the assertion by the observer. The premise is subject to the angle of the observer. This angle of the observer is the formalism itself in determining which phenomena act as a premise and which do not.
As a formalism, the angle of the observer has a thetical and antithetical element. The thetical is that which is observed through the observer. The antithetical is that which is not observed through the observer.
Premises are thus determined by a dualism between what is observed and what is not observed. This dualism forms the angle of observation itself where what is observed is a series of continuums which intersect at the point of non observation. It is the series of continuums which form observation itself and the absence of continuums which reflect an absense of observation.
All arguments, as subject to the angle of the observer, are thus grounded in continuums with these continuums acting as the premise. Considering the premise of an argument has no set formalisms in determining what acts as the premise and what does not, the formalism of the premise is always a continuum. Formalism is continuity of the premise from one state into another however there is no formalism in determining which premise one begins with other than continuum itself. In these respects all premises, as subject to the point of the observer, are random in respect to subject, but formalized as continuums.
This continuum is the process of definition.
The volume of words is premised upon one thing expressed in a variety of ways. One phenomena as replicating does so as an adaptation to its inherent void. For example "x" has one meaning. This meaning is empty in and of itself thus it progresses to "y" where the relationship of "x" and "y" form eachother. "Y" and "x" are both empty on their own terms thus progressed to "z".
This emptiness is grounded in the circularity of the phenomenon where "x is x", "y is y", "x is y" and "y is x". Each term is an empty loop, and as an empty loop is determined by what phenomenon they progress to. This progression is the the process of definition where one word inverts to another symmetrical word allowing for the repetition of the original word.