Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 31, 2023 19:36:45 GMT
The nature of appearance has be questioned starting with Plato and Aristotle all the way up to Nietzsche and this broad succession of questioning is not only an appearance in itself but a set of appearances. One appearance leads to another appearance and then another appearance and the nature of appearance becomes ambiguous. This ambiguity is an appearance as well as in stating that ‘something is ambiguous’ we are creating a clear appearance as ‘ambiguity’ becomes defining. However this clarity in the paradoxical observation of ambiguity requires further appearances beyond the ambiguity to justify the ambiguity as ambiguous. In this respects the phenomenon of appearance becomes self-refuting and contradictory.
The nature of an appearance necessitates an underlying essence which grounds said appearance as the appearance must come from something beyond it. In pointing to the observation that there is ‘an underlying essence beyond the appearance’ we are in turn creating an appearance within the observation as “an underlying essence beyond the appearance” is an appearance. Under these terms ‘essence’ becomes ‘appearance’ and we cannot separate the two and a contradiction, through the fallacy of equivocation, ensues.
The contradictory nature of appearance, both in its infinite regress and its standing apart yet being one with ‘essence’, necessitates its nature as illusive and this illusiveness necessitates it as having a nature of illusion, i.e. a partial truth or rather not full truth. This partiality of the appearance necessitates it as relative in a minimum of two respects. The first being that the appearance must relate to further appearances in order to exist thus all appearances are parts whenever we localize a single aspect of the totality of reality and call this localization an ‘individual’. The second being that the appearance exists relative to certain appearances but not to others thus manifests a dual nature of both existing and not existing when all appearances, as a whole, are taken into account. In these respects the grounding of appearance as illusionary is grounded in its nature as relative and paradoxically this is all an appearance.
This leads to further contradiction however considering if all appearance is an illusion then this statement that “all appearance is an illusion” is an illusion, as it is an appearance, thus not all appearance is an illusion. “All appearance is an illusion” is self-negating under these terms. However considering that all appearance is relative, and relativity is partiality thus illusionary (as mentioned before), ‘the illusion of all appearance being an illusion’ is an illusion as it is relative as well considering the ‘the illusion of all appearance being an illusion’ is an illusion. The nature of appearance continually contradicts itself in these respects. Taking the relative nature of appearance out of the equation we can observe the illusionary nature of appearance even further. All appearance must be an illusion if this statement that “all appearance is an illusion” is an illusion, because it is an appearance, considering illusion must be the essence of all appearances if “all appearance is an illusion” is an illusion because it is an appearance. This path of reasoning leaves us in absurdity.
There is no defining line that separates appearance and illusion without this defining line being an appearance, thus illusion, in itself. This contradiction continues revolving ad-infinitum. From another angle the defining line between appearance and illusion can be argued as not an illusion but this necessitates the illusion as standing apart from appearance thus making it a thing that appears, because of its ‘standing apart’, and as an appearance illusion and appearance equate.
The nature of appearance and illusion takes on a deeper level of contradiction if we are to measure reality as strictly a monism. If there is only one thing, i.e. a monism, then all illusions are part of this reality thus are no longer illusions. But then there is an illusion that there are illusions. Under these terms reality as monistic is a contradiction and as a contradiction is beyond the senses unless we accept the appearance of non-monism. However the appearance of non-monism is a summation of all things under this singular concept and monism appears again. We cannot say that reality appears as ‘this or that’ without ending in contradiction. And yet this prior statement is an appearance of reality thus it contradicts itself in the respect that the appearance of reality as “not appearing as ‘this or that’ without contradiction” is an “appearance of ‘this or that’ thus a contradiction”. Thus what we know of the appearance of a monistic or dualistic reality is that contradiction appears to exist but even this contradicts as it is an appearance and appearance is contradictory. Thus not “everything is appearance” but to further contradict this statement is in itself an appearance.
Taking the abstract appearances aside somethings may be said about the contradictory nature of empirical appearance. From one angle of observation all reality empirical can be argued as fundamentally being flat as the vertices and horizons of thing are all that exist. Depth is just a change of these vertices and horizon as depth results in the seeing of one vertices and horizon behind another vertices and horizon. An example of this is seeing a pillar then either moving the pillar or moving around the pillar results in the depth of said pillar as its forms, and what is behind it, changes. Without change there is no depth. This changing nature of the vertices/horizons to further vertices/horizon necessitates one appearance standing apart from another appearance thus resulting in a contradictory nature to what we observe as this ‘standing apart’ necessitates the depth through which we observe reality.
In reality there is only ‘everything as appearance’ then and not even this. And this ‘everything’ includes all things and conscious experiences as things be it one or many phenomena or neither one nor many phenomenon. This self-refuting argument is a pointer to how little we know. Reality existing beyond contradiction is reality existing beyond appearance. This prior statement is an appearance thus a contradiction occurs. From this it may be implied that reality is appearance but another contradiction ensues in the respect that reality as only appearance leaves it as effectively nothing as no essence exists unless we equate essence to appearance. Under these terms we are left with absurdity.
The nature of an appearance necessitates an underlying essence which grounds said appearance as the appearance must come from something beyond it. In pointing to the observation that there is ‘an underlying essence beyond the appearance’ we are in turn creating an appearance within the observation as “an underlying essence beyond the appearance” is an appearance. Under these terms ‘essence’ becomes ‘appearance’ and we cannot separate the two and a contradiction, through the fallacy of equivocation, ensues.
The contradictory nature of appearance, both in its infinite regress and its standing apart yet being one with ‘essence’, necessitates its nature as illusive and this illusiveness necessitates it as having a nature of illusion, i.e. a partial truth or rather not full truth. This partiality of the appearance necessitates it as relative in a minimum of two respects. The first being that the appearance must relate to further appearances in order to exist thus all appearances are parts whenever we localize a single aspect of the totality of reality and call this localization an ‘individual’. The second being that the appearance exists relative to certain appearances but not to others thus manifests a dual nature of both existing and not existing when all appearances, as a whole, are taken into account. In these respects the grounding of appearance as illusionary is grounded in its nature as relative and paradoxically this is all an appearance.
This leads to further contradiction however considering if all appearance is an illusion then this statement that “all appearance is an illusion” is an illusion, as it is an appearance, thus not all appearance is an illusion. “All appearance is an illusion” is self-negating under these terms. However considering that all appearance is relative, and relativity is partiality thus illusionary (as mentioned before), ‘the illusion of all appearance being an illusion’ is an illusion as it is relative as well considering the ‘the illusion of all appearance being an illusion’ is an illusion. The nature of appearance continually contradicts itself in these respects. Taking the relative nature of appearance out of the equation we can observe the illusionary nature of appearance even further. All appearance must be an illusion if this statement that “all appearance is an illusion” is an illusion, because it is an appearance, considering illusion must be the essence of all appearances if “all appearance is an illusion” is an illusion because it is an appearance. This path of reasoning leaves us in absurdity.
There is no defining line that separates appearance and illusion without this defining line being an appearance, thus illusion, in itself. This contradiction continues revolving ad-infinitum. From another angle the defining line between appearance and illusion can be argued as not an illusion but this necessitates the illusion as standing apart from appearance thus making it a thing that appears, because of its ‘standing apart’, and as an appearance illusion and appearance equate.
The nature of appearance and illusion takes on a deeper level of contradiction if we are to measure reality as strictly a monism. If there is only one thing, i.e. a monism, then all illusions are part of this reality thus are no longer illusions. But then there is an illusion that there are illusions. Under these terms reality as monistic is a contradiction and as a contradiction is beyond the senses unless we accept the appearance of non-monism. However the appearance of non-monism is a summation of all things under this singular concept and monism appears again. We cannot say that reality appears as ‘this or that’ without ending in contradiction. And yet this prior statement is an appearance of reality thus it contradicts itself in the respect that the appearance of reality as “not appearing as ‘this or that’ without contradiction” is an “appearance of ‘this or that’ thus a contradiction”. Thus what we know of the appearance of a monistic or dualistic reality is that contradiction appears to exist but even this contradicts as it is an appearance and appearance is contradictory. Thus not “everything is appearance” but to further contradict this statement is in itself an appearance.
Taking the abstract appearances aside somethings may be said about the contradictory nature of empirical appearance. From one angle of observation all reality empirical can be argued as fundamentally being flat as the vertices and horizons of thing are all that exist. Depth is just a change of these vertices and horizon as depth results in the seeing of one vertices and horizon behind another vertices and horizon. An example of this is seeing a pillar then either moving the pillar or moving around the pillar results in the depth of said pillar as its forms, and what is behind it, changes. Without change there is no depth. This changing nature of the vertices/horizons to further vertices/horizon necessitates one appearance standing apart from another appearance thus resulting in a contradictory nature to what we observe as this ‘standing apart’ necessitates the depth through which we observe reality.
In reality there is only ‘everything as appearance’ then and not even this. And this ‘everything’ includes all things and conscious experiences as things be it one or many phenomena or neither one nor many phenomenon. This self-refuting argument is a pointer to how little we know. Reality existing beyond contradiction is reality existing beyond appearance. This prior statement is an appearance thus a contradiction occurs. From this it may be implied that reality is appearance but another contradiction ensues in the respect that reality as only appearance leaves it as effectively nothing as no essence exists unless we equate essence to appearance. Under these terms we are left with absurdity.