|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2020 16:00:40 GMT
The one is expressed through multiplicity. For example, one electron is expressed through many where the one is a set of many parts (ie one electron exists through many different electrons). Another example is the number one expressed recursively through many numbers. "All that there is" includes all acts of measurement as phenomena in themselves where "the many", as a series of phenomenon, is a phenomenon in itself as a series of phenomenon which exists. In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is.
The universe does not exist as independent of itself given it moves through itself under of multiplicity of parts where each part is distinct given it progresses to another part as a means of change.
The universe, all that there is, is both one and many.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 2, 2020 16:00:56 GMT
Y
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 4, 2020 16:30:36 GMT
The one is expressed through multiplicity. For example, one electron is expressed through many where the one is a set of many parts (ie one electron exists through many different electrons). Another example is the number one expressed recursively through many numbers. "All that there is" includes all acts of measurement as phenomena in themselves where "the many", as a series of phenomenon, is a phenomenon in itself as a series of phenomenon which exists. In the dichotomy between the one and the many they both exist at the same time in different respects given they are both expression of all that there is. The universe does not exist as independent of itself given it moves through itself under of multiplicity of parts where each part is distinct given it progresses to another part as a means of change. The progression of one part through another part suggests each part as empty in itself. This emptiness of each part necessitates each part as progressing to another resulting in a self sustained loop. This loop, as with most loops, is empty given the parts which compose it cannot exist on there own terms. The universe, or all being, is a series of loops within loops with all loops being an approximation of one loop. An example of a series of rings within rings shows one ring as existing through many thus both one and many rings. The universe is not independent of the parts which compose it just in the same manner as a series of rings within rings is not independent of the ring form and function Each part as distinct is a means of change from one phenomena to another through a contrast. For example a bird cannot be observed on it's own terms except in contrast to a tree. The bird as a distinct phenomena is a means of change to another phenomena, in this case a tree. Language, labels and names are part of the universe as phenomena which exist as part of the universe. The universe exists as both one and many, both dependent upon itself through fractals and independent of itself as a means of change from one fractal to another. The universe is dependent upon it fractals through which it exists. It is independent of these fractals given each fractal is a variation of the original form. The universe, all that there is, is both one and many.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 20, 2020 17:56:53 GMT
And guessed the same being younger.
I knew that we could try to think that each new part corresponds to the logic of such interpretation – I mean that either it's because of men's thinking, or some objective logic – we try to prove One (oneness, unity, 1, monade, etc) and this try (the try, the attempt) is itself the process of unification multiplications. Nevertheless, I saw no perspectives to take One without a multiplication (plural, many, several, etc).
Even now the situation haven't changed. All this, surely, can be united as the idea.
(...(((One)one)one)...)
And it seems to be an inversion of
(...-->(X)-->(X)-->(X)-->...)
where X is usually a matter, a subject, a phenomenon, a field of researches, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Sept 20, 2020 20:53:20 GMT
I think everything is one and many at the same time. A person is one but has many parts to him like legs, arms, blood, etc. A car is one but has many parts like engine, wheels, etc. Which is why it should be easy to comprehend that if a God exists He will be one but with several parts.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 20, 2020 23:34:01 GMT
The One and the Many...…… You are all getting around the issue of the one and the many. The ancient issue arose in Parmenides' philosophy: There is only one being (or: Being -- that which is: To Ti Esti -- ls ONE, but it seems that there are many beings. Well then, HOW is it possible for there to be MANY beings??? My view is that the used word "one" is ambiguous and that some thinkers about Being use "one" equivocally. Parmenides said that the being or existence of anything [To Ti Esti or To On (the Being)] is one, that is, simple or not composed of parts and, therefore, indivisible, atomic (which later gave rise to Democritus' theory of atoms: the universe consists of many indivisible things and compounds thereof). In fact, a Parmenidean would argue, it make no sense to think of an half existence, a quarter existence, and the like.... in the same way that we think of a half a pie, a quarter pie, and the like. However, others (like the Ionian physicists) claim that That Which Exists is a plurality of things [like many parts of a pie]. Well, now the question arises: How can many things exist (since Being is uncuttable, indivisible)? What would be responsible for the separation of two things? Not Nothing (Non-Being), since Nothing neither is nor can be conceived. Nothing cannot do anything. Can a being be responsible for the separation? This begs the question, since an intermediary being would require another being for its inviduality, and so on to infinity. Similarly there cannot be a beginning to a being (an existent), since the being would have to come from Nothing. (The physicists understood that what emerges, what begins to be, comes from something that is already here. Smoke comes from a burning log -- what is happening is a metamorphosis, not an absolute coming into being, an absolute beginning of smoke.) The oneness (simplicity) of the existence of something does not imply that only one thing exists. "Existence"does not mean "physical quality", and Hume righty said that existence is not a predicate of an existing thing. So, the deeper question persists in history: What is Existence or Be-ing?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Sept 21, 2020 1:58:44 GMT
The One and the Many...…… You are all getting around the issue of the one and the many. The ancient issue arose in Parmenides' philosophy: There is only one being (or: Being -- that which is: To Ti Esti -- ls ONE, but it seems that there are many beings. Well then, HOW is it possible for there to be MANY beings??? My view is that the used word "one" is ambiguous and that some thinkers about Being use "one" equivocally. Parmenides said that the being or existence of anything [To Ti Esti or To On (the Being)] is one, that is, simple or not composed of parts and, therefore, indivisible, atomic (which later gave rise to Democritus' theory of atoms: the universe consists of many indivisible things and compounds thereof). In fact, a Parmenidean would argue, it make no sense to think of an half existence, a quarter existence, and the like.... in the same way that we think of a half a pie, a quarter pie, and the like. However, others (like the Ionian physicists) claim that That Which Exists is a plurality of things [like many parts of a pie]. Well, now the question arises: How can many things exist (since Being is uncuttable, indivisible)? What would be responsible for the separation of two things? Not Nothing (Non-Being), since Nothing neither is nor can be conceived. Nothing cannot do anything. Can a being be responsible for the separation? This begs the question, since an intermediary being would require another being for its inviduality, and so on to infinity. Similarly there cannot be a beginning to a being (an existent), since the being would have to come from Nothing. (The physicists understood that what emerges, what begins to be, comes from something that is already here. Smoke comes from a burning log -- what is happening is a metamorphosis, not an absolute coming into being, an absolute beginning of smoke.) The oneness (simplicity) of the existence of something does not imply that only one thing exists. "Existence"does not mean "physical quality", and Hume rightly said that existence is not a predicate of an existing thing. So, the deeper question persists in history: What is Existence or Be-ing?// The Greek "to on" (the o being an omega)is a verbal noun based on the present participle of Einai (= to be) and is translated litterally as "the Be-ing", French L'E^tre, German Das Dasein, Italian L'Essere, etc. The above, copied post, includes a late correction and addition. Thank you.
|
|