Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 25, 2021 16:06:08 GMT
Why properties are so important? Have you ever asked yourself about it? Why an individual is important, and it's not gonna be that a society is more important, than an individual? If some person P is trying to assure you that you don't exist, your existence is conditioned by the existence of a society, are you gonna believe to him? I won't and don't advice you to do that. The answer follows, but first let's gonna check what relations and properties are.
Properties - are that something that describe a bearer or an owner of them. If x has properties a, b, and c, then it's the same as to say that that x is being characterized by those a, b, and c. Unless a, b, and c are given, we don't know that x. For instance, a number is something that can be count, and it allows to say something about identical deities.
Relations - are such deities that exists only if there are at least two other deities. It's sorta a third element to two others. But it doesn't mean that between any two deities there's a relaton. It might be; or it might be that between two deities there is one type of relation exist, while the other type of relation cannot be observed. For example, for any two number there is a relation such that if one number adds to another number then will achieve some other number.
But why there is a problem and how properties can lost their meaning? Let's observe this tabilet:
What can you say about a or b? You can say that if you grab a you see that it is something. But this tablet helps you to understand it, because the number of times you grab a, b, or c, d, or e - it exactly what this tablets presents. I mean one experiment you see a is 0 (when the function f1 at 5th, 6th and 7th positions, or f3,on 5th and 6th, and f2 as the same positions as f1, are in progress). You can see that a works always on f4 as the others variables a, b, c... work. So, no matter what - whether a is performed or not (i.e. whether or not it equal to 1 or 0) - f4 shows something about that a.
But mostly this tablets can tell us about a, b, or any other variables through relations. Like b works in f2 only when a = 1, while c = 0 - at the 7th position. That's why to say which properties b has - is the same as to say when b works while some other properties do? We may see that f3 is kinda useless to determine b, because we gotta know what changes to b when the rest of variables change.
Let's observe the function two. Notice that f2 equal to logical formula ~(avbvc)v(a&~c). Because we must have either none of variable equal to 1, or to have a and denying of c. Just if we'd want to determine something complex <a, b, c> we may draw a similar tablet, and then find out when it works. However, the relationship positions won't go us too far: each time we would be needed in corrections from the rest of properties. (About this I'll say at the end.)
We can see that 11358 appear in f5 only when a number of j's is even. And we can see that if the sum of numbers of i, and j is the odd number, then in the last column of f6 we will see another prime number.
...
As you might've noticed to find what is x (or a, b, c...) we needed to make a series of acts in which the meanings of that x would be different. So, formally, this is the same as to provide experiments in which we can find out what all those things are.
This formal thing won't sure you so good as it may provide the next several lines. I hope these lines hope you to understand it more completely, and find out why that war against properties is the real war, and why it is the war against spirituality:
G. Hegel's absolute: there is a whole, and there is no parts without the whole
E. Cassirer's relations: there are no things; each things must be uttered through the series of relations.
Marxist's maxims: there is no individual, because each of such is the class of imperialistic rulers; there is a proletariat
B. Russell's theory: there is no way to name things, except for giving descriptions about them
A. Einstein's relatitivy: there is no laws of nature regardless to its measuring
Poststructuralist's theory: there is no individual, except for the sum of his interactions with the others interactions
Postmodernism's theory: there is no (central) text (history), just its interpretations
It's just a part of those claims. Each of those wants us to be diluted into the others, like the plurality within pluralities... How do you try to obtain any spritiruality or how would you try to concentrate on something trying to contemplete if you won't be allowed to?
So, don't try to measure yourself only in due to the others. Don't be afraid of being an individual. You're the one, if you can act just as the one.
Properties - are that something that describe a bearer or an owner of them. If x has properties a, b, and c, then it's the same as to say that that x is being characterized by those a, b, and c. Unless a, b, and c are given, we don't know that x. For instance, a number is something that can be count, and it allows to say something about identical deities.
Relations - are such deities that exists only if there are at least two other deities. It's sorta a third element to two others. But it doesn't mean that between any two deities there's a relaton. It might be; or it might be that between two deities there is one type of relation exist, while the other type of relation cannot be observed. For example, for any two number there is a relation such that if one number adds to another number then will achieve some other number.
But why there is a problem and how properties can lost their meaning? Let's observe this tabilet:
| a | b | c | d | e | f1 | f2 | f3 | f4 | f5 | f6 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | i | j | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -16/17 | 100 |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | i | jj | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11358 | 2 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | ii | j | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 44 | 3 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | ii | jj | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11358 | 10000 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | iii | jjj | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 111 | 12 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | iii | jjjj | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11358 | 5 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | iiii | jjj | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | iiii | jjjj | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11358 | -14 |
What can you say about a or b? You can say that if you grab a you see that it is something. But this tablet helps you to understand it, because the number of times you grab a, b, or c, d, or e - it exactly what this tablets presents. I mean one experiment you see a is 0 (when the function f1 at 5th, 6th and 7th positions, or f3,on 5th and 6th, and f2 as the same positions as f1, are in progress). You can see that a works always on f4 as the others variables a, b, c... work. So, no matter what - whether a is performed or not (i.e. whether or not it equal to 1 or 0) - f4 shows something about that a.
But mostly this tablets can tell us about a, b, or any other variables through relations. Like b works in f2 only when a = 1, while c = 0 - at the 7th position. That's why to say which properties b has - is the same as to say when b works while some other properties do? We may see that f3 is kinda useless to determine b, because we gotta know what changes to b when the rest of variables change.
Let's observe the function two. Notice that f2 equal to logical formula ~(avbvc)v(a&~c). Because we must have either none of variable equal to 1, or to have a and denying of c. Just if we'd want to determine something complex <a, b, c> we may draw a similar tablet, and then find out when it works. However, the relationship positions won't go us too far: each time we would be needed in corrections from the rest of properties. (About this I'll say at the end.)
We can see that 11358 appear in f5 only when a number of j's is even. And we can see that if the sum of numbers of i, and j is the odd number, then in the last column of f6 we will see another prime number.
...
As you might've noticed to find what is x (or a, b, c...) we needed to make a series of acts in which the meanings of that x would be different. So, formally, this is the same as to provide experiments in which we can find out what all those things are.
This formal thing won't sure you so good as it may provide the next several lines. I hope these lines hope you to understand it more completely, and find out why that war against properties is the real war, and why it is the war against spirituality:
G. Hegel's absolute: there is a whole, and there is no parts without the whole
E. Cassirer's relations: there are no things; each things must be uttered through the series of relations.
Marxist's maxims: there is no individual, because each of such is the class of imperialistic rulers; there is a proletariat
B. Russell's theory: there is no way to name things, except for giving descriptions about them
A. Einstein's relatitivy: there is no laws of nature regardless to its measuring
Poststructuralist's theory: there is no individual, except for the sum of his interactions with the others interactions
Postmodernism's theory: there is no (central) text (history), just its interpretations
It's just a part of those claims. Each of those wants us to be diluted into the others, like the plurality within pluralities... How do you try to obtain any spritiruality or how would you try to concentrate on something trying to contemplete if you won't be allowed to?
So, don't try to measure yourself only in due to the others. Don't be afraid of being an individual. You're the one, if you can act just as the one.