You have to be joking if you think that is a lot or even deep, or if you set the standard for sanity which is a debatable subject in itself. Thinking inside a box is a luxury, it is not owed to anyone.

The question is answered.

You asked about the nature of the axiom, as to whether it observes phenomon which lends to the nature of whether an axiom is conscious. More specifically if any phenomenon is in itself conscious.

If a phenomena is conscious, it must have some degree of self referentiality.

If all phenomena are conscious, as all phenomena are axiomatic (self referential and existing through the observer), then all phenomena stem from a center point of consciousness considering consciousness is the ever present cause.

This center point of consciousness stems through all phenomena, necessitating all axioms exist through eachother. The axiom, in turn, as a point of origin reflects the nature of God where all being is a reflection.

The thread is about the God debate, the premises must be observed.

[reply=

Axiom, A self-evident truth:

1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity).

2) References a loop, where the "truth" as evident to the self contains not just a nature of self-referentiality but consciousness as well. In these respects all truths, that which exists, has an inherent nature of consciousness.

3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God".

4) The axiom as composed of an composing all axioms is void in itself in the respect it is relative to other Axioms. In these respects, this observes the Axiom as nothing being equivalent to God as "Ending/Beginning" as a point of inversion conducive to nothingness. God is a 0d point.

5) The axiom as all axioms, where all axioms are extensions of eachother, observes all Axioms as 1 "everything", this is Equivalent to "God as Everything". God is pure being observed as a 1d point.

6) God as both Everything and Nothing, 1d/0d point space observes God as "Origin" as both "Cause" (pure structure through 1d point space) and "Acausal" (pure void as 0d point space). This point space, with the "point" rationally and intuitively being not just the foundation of axioms but the most axiomatic of all axioms for being "as is", is a definition of God and a foundation of consciousness within man as measurer.

7) God as Origin, is beyond Origin as Origin alone necessitates a dualism of both pure being and void, hence God is beyond point space an axioms. Beyond "Origin" is "definition" as the separation and connection of Origin, and "Power" as the maintainance and dissolution of "origin". The rational capacity for man to be original, define and exhibit power observes man, and consciousness, as a reflection or "mirroring of God synonymous to repetition or recursion" observes man as an extension of God.

8) All axioms, existing in accords to the other axioms which give origin, definition and power (maintainance), observes the axiom itself as a limit with all limits being the foundation of being.

9) The axiom as a limit, which is the foundation to all structure and order considering all being stems from structure and order through these foundational limits (with these foundational limits existing as limits in themselves) observes all axioms as proof through existence.

10) Existence is proof of God through the axiom.

 Top"Terrapin Station;226570"]

An axiom, such as A or B is "self-evident truth"

A self-evident truth:

1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity).

2) References a loop, where the "truth" as evident to the self contains not just a nature of self-referentiality but consciousness as well. In these respects all truths, that which exists, has an inherent nature of consciousness.

3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God".

The axioms of mathematics are still subject to the fallacies observed, thus negating them as a single stand alone quality with the exception of the proof of these axioms under the frameworks through which they exist. Proof is structure as framework, ie Proof is existence.

You are correct there is no standard axiom in math, that observes Pi as a line (let alone a length), however this not negate the principle the axiom is possible, therefore must exist given a continuum of further axioms.

1. Something that is linear is a line, even the linear movement of a particle from point A to point B exists through a line from point A to point B. A line is a localization of directed movement in 1 direction. A curved line, as an approximation of a straight line, can be constituted as infinite straight lines composing and composed of infinite angles.

2. Pi is transcendental and gives both proof and framework, as a number, that numbers exist through continuums. All lines exist as infinite continuums as well. A line can be both a quantity and quality. So can a circle and point. Numbers as spatial qualities have a trifold nature, due to there directed capacity where no number can exist unless directed to another number.

3. The curved line as a continuum observes the curved line as the continuous projection of 0d points (no form) as a line (directed movement as form). All lines and circles are composed of infinite 0d points, necessitating the line and circle existing as not just continuums but having inherent directional qualities as well.

A line may exist in 1 direction relative to another direction (line). A circle may be observed as going in all directions as one direction.

4. The circumference as Pi is necessitated if Pi = C/D and D = 1. I explained this already, multiple times.

A is an axiom.

A as an axiom cannot exist on its own terms unless it exists through other axioms.

A must project to further axioms, as A on its own terms is effectively nothing/point 0/void.

All axioms, or self-evident truths, exist as the foundation for all phenomenon. They may be observed physical or abstract phenomenon that while observed form the observer so that the axiom is simultaneously an extension of the observer.

Axioms, observe all being as having an inherent element of consciousness in these regards as a perpetual measurement point of origin where reality is defined by the limits given to it, with these limits existing as the foundation for complex phenomena as limits in themselves.

The axiom existing through further axioms, with the axiom in itself being nothing/void/point 0 observes the axiom as not just rooted in consciousness but effectively the void of consciousness with consciousness stemming from a point 0 in these respects.

Consciousness is founded in point space, and this point space reflects through all being.

So A and B may be persons, where a person projects past their identity to form a new identity, a person projects past themselves through off spring, but it is not limited to persons but any form of movement.

From a different perspective, An atom must project past its localized position to another position in order to exist, however because the atom exist in a different position the atom is changed.

Or one can use "emotion", where anger is directed past its own origins into another emotion, such as joy which is the negation of anger by its dissolution. Anger dissolves into Joy, with both these emotions composed of further sub emotions (happiness, rage, jealousy, fear, contentement, whatever).

The directive nature of any axiom observes the axiom as effectively separating itself, through itself, into another axiom.

Deleted

A → (A,A)B observes A projecting past its origins as B. This progression from A to B observes A fundamentally separating itself as B.

Volume is accelerated Mass as form.

If A is defined through B(A,A) as C(A,A,A).

1. A is separated through B where A not just projects to a further defintion, but in this projection separates itself. One defintion leads to another with these definitions occurin g through a separation which is observed in accordance with time as a process of individuation (multiplication/division of definition).

2. A is directed towards B, but in doing so B is directed towards A. A is connected to B, through A, as C. C is the connection of A and B.

3. All defintion occurs through directed movement. Projecting away from an origin results in separation. Phenomenon projected towards eachother, through eachother, as eachother is connection.

Definition is existence through linear movement as directed movement with this directed movement being the foundational for all abstract and empirical phenomena (mind, emotion, material).

Mass is with out form. It is measured according to its resistance to acceleration (accelation occurs through direction as an object cannot accelerate without direction) with this acceleration giving it form through volume. Mass as formed through volume observes the acceleration of the mass as volume necessitates volume as having mass.

The gravitational pull of volume occurs through its mass, as this gravity is a pulling together of volume as form through as vacuum of no form. Volume is pulled through mass, with mass acting as a vacuum or void. This causes a further acceleration of the volume further giving volume to further mass where gravity effectively cancels itself out perpetually resulting in a cycle.

Density as volume and mass is a localization of this cycle of volume and mass respectively observing volume and mass existing in proportion due to there ratios. An object of with a density relatively high in mass will have a greater grativational pull, while a density relatively higher in volume will have less of a gravitational pull but will be pulled towards an object, through gravity, that has a higher ratio of mass to volume.


Mass can be associated with 0d point space acting as a boundless field, where gravity is one of the foundational points (pardon the pun) for quantum entanglement. This gravity, through mass, observes itself as a inversive by nature where volume alternates between a state of unity and multiplicity that is foundational to its structure.

Matter is mass as formless void, volume as this formless void canceling itself out into directed movement through acceleration and density as the cycling of volume and mass maintaining both.

Matter is tri-fold in nature and reflects the basic 0d point, 1d line, and 2d Circle as the foundation for the defintion of God. Matter is an approximation of God, an image, that does not exist on its own terms but rather as an extension.

The definitions you argue are correct under standard axioms of mathematics. The problem, as axioms, is that they are subject to a multitude of fallacies: authority, bandwagon, no true scotsman (pseudo fallacy for some), straw man (the axioms form a position not previously held), red herring (each axiom diverts to another axiom), etc.

The axioms are determined as true because of the arguments, as strucutures, which stem from them. These argument/structures, in turn are justified according to there symmetry with symmetry being the replication of certain qualities/quantities that show a common bond.

All axioms, therefore, are composed of further axioms, and there are infinite further axioms considering all axioms are justified according to there replicative symmetry. Instead of the word replication, one may use the word "mirroring" or "recursion".

1) Each line exists because of its directional qualities. It's quantifiable nature is inseparable from its direction. All empirical phenomena, as the premise for quantity, exist because of the directional nature in time. All quantity exists because of time, hence it directional.

2) A ratio, as how many times a phenomena can fit into another phenomena, with all phenomena as directional due to time, necessitates that ratio as existing as linear. How many times 3 lines can fit into one still necessitates the three lines as 1. The same applies for how many time 3 lines can fit into 6 lines as two lines.

3. The circumferance unraveled into a straight line, as 3.141 Diameter as one line, is still a length through the 1 diameter as 3.141... .Pi is also transcendental number with any line as Pi necessiting all lines as infinite. This is symmetrical to further definitions of the line as infinite between 0d points.

4. A curved line can be composed of infinite 1d lines as quantum angles, a curved line is multiple straight lines as an approximation of the straight line. The line exists because of its directional qualities, and the curved line exists if and only if there are Euclidian axioms, with the Euclidean axioms necessitating the line as having a directional quality as point directed to point..

5. Pi as a line observes the line, at minimum as three dimensional where it is three directions in one, with the fractal nature observing infinite directions through these three. The line can exist as:

A. 1 line
B. 1 quantum angle.
C. 1 quantum frequency as multiple angles
D. Points A,B,C as individuating (multiplying/dividing) through eachother, into infinite directions reference itself back to a circle.

***due to lack of diagrams, I may have to expound on this point further.

6. To say pi is a length is not nonsense, considering all lengths are premised in a relation of parts. 1 unit relative to another unit is the foundation for all length, and this in itself leads to an infinite regress where 1 as a unit is one as a length. Pi as a length is composed of units already, where 1 length can be argued strictly as 1. If the diameter is 1, then the circumferance is of a length equivalent to Pi. It is not a problem in math but rather a problem in establishing units of measurement.

7. If the curved line of a circumferance is not as measurable as a straight line, then Pi is wrong because the measurement of the circumferance and diameter/straight line cannot form a ratio.

8. The curved line of a circle as irrational, neccessitates a continuum in that it is not finite. A line a 1 unit is equally irrational as a continuum.

9. Two dimensionality is opposition as contradiction, where what is "even", effectively is without boundary as no center source gives balance, and therefore unit to the number. All even numbers, as premised in 1 as a medial point, is an opposition of medial points necessitating an inherent seperation. 2 is the beginning of any form of multiplicity where a structure cannot be observed, considering all structure is dependent upon an inherent form of unit as premise in the odd number always having a center medial point which gives balance to the number.

10. The number of times a diameter goes into a circumferance necessites the circumferance as Pi. Pi is 1 line as one lemgth where 1 (diameter) and Pi (circumferance) are interchangeable. All diameters act as pi, amd we can observe the Pi replicates itself into further circles as further circumferance. 1 and Pi are strictly interchangalbe lengths relative to context, and act as foundational measurements.

11. Pi is transcendtal, as it is continuous, and as a foundational measurement give premise to recursion as an element within math, logic, science, etc.

I am fully aware it is a ratio, but this does not negate it from being a line as well. All lines exists as x length relative to the lines the are composed of or compose. Each line however as composed of infinite lines or composing infinite lines is 1.


A ratio is the number of times one phenomena fits in another, in these respects we can use a line.

Pi = c/d.


The diameter fits into the circumference 3.141... times; Hence a diameter of one observes a circumference of 3.141... .

The diameter is a determined ratio of parts. To say it is x units, with each unit being composed of further units to infinity, observes the diameter as 1 length composed of x units. However as one length, determined by the number of units composing it, with the number of units further composing it resulting in not just infinite units but a number of units approaching infinity, the diameter can be observed as 1 unit as one 1d line.

The diameter as one fitting into the circumference 3.141... times observes the circumferance as 3.141...

The circumferance, as a length of 3.141, when unraveled, observes a line in itself that is equivalent to a diameter for one circle, with the diameter being a relative radius of another circle.

So a diameter of Pi results in a circle with a circumference of 9.8696

And a radius of Pi results in a circle with a circumferance of 19.739.

In these respects the diameter of 1 results in a circumferance of Pi, hence a line equivalent to Pi where Pi becomes a length.



So the circle fundamentally observes three lengths:

Radius as 1/2 Diameter as 1 line

Diameter as 2 radius as 1 line.

Circumferance as 1 Pi as one line.

So while pi = c/d or c/2r we are left with the circumferance being pi if the diameter is one infinity and the radius is 2 infinities as one infinite.

The circumferance in turn equates to a length which can be applied as both diameter and radius considering both are lengths.

Pi is a length, not just a ratio and alternates with 1 as the foundation of length.

All lines are equivalent to Pi just as all lines are equivalent to one in themselves.

And what is matter but mass (formlessness), volume (form as formlessness being directed) and density (volume and mass interwoven)?

The matter paradox, still breaks down to a question of form and no form, directed movement and multiple directed movement.

Definition occurs through the separation and connection of phenomena, by

the phenomena directing away from its origins into a new phenomena (seperation).

Or multiple phenomena directed towards eachother as eachother (connection).


This act of definition occurin g though language is not limited to language itself.

Space is the foundation for everything. From these terms we can equate all phenomenon, both abstractions and physical phenomenon, as spatial. The question of space in turn breaks down to directed movement, for everything we understand about being occurs through:

1. Movement as a form of repetition, where a phenomenon replicates itself given a specific framework with the framework acting as a replicating phenonemon, observes an inherent multiplicity as the foundation for a phenomena.

2. This replication of phenomena, as movement through multiplicity, occurs if and only if directed; hence replication occurs through direction.

3. Infinite replication, as directed movement, gives foundation to consistency where movement at a rate of infinity becomes effectively still. An example would be a wheel spinning at the rate of infinity appearing still.

4. Space as unified would be infinite movement, where any perceivable change would be space folding through space as space. Space can effectively replicate itself considering space exists relative to other space. What differs one spatial limit from another is its rate of movement. However if space is composed of infinite movement as no movement, we are left with one infinity inverting to multiple infinities.

5. The question is how can a space change to further space, or rather how can space multiply if space is space. A unified space inverting to multiple space, as multiple rates of movement with one infinity being greater than another, necessitates this inversion of space as directed movement being a form of change in itself.

6. So 1 space inverting to another space observes space as nothing. This nothingness, where space inverts to further space, observe void voiding itself under its own nature.

7. Nothing cancels itself out into directed movement where this directed movement encapsulates nothingness. Considering nothing cannot be observed as it does not exists except as the inversion of unity, what we see is multiple spaces with matter being atoms as 0d point space inverting to further point space.

8. Hence space as directed movement would be equivalent to ether, with void observe the ether as 1d point space directed towards eachother.

9. Space is determined by its directional qualities where space as void, is strictly multiplicity as various rates of infinity.

10. An infinity closest to point 0, or space continually individuating, would be matter.


Thought would be the quickest of movements followed by matter as a lower degree of the same space.

I will address at some other time considering some restraints, but
Equivocation is not an issue of language, but measurement and definition that lends itself to problems in all schools of thought.

True,

We are left with God as the third variable of this dualism, being/nonbeing, as existing as both and neither. God as both takes on a nature of synthesis, or "joining" reminscient of Hegel, Pythagorean concept of three, Socratic dialogue (resulting in plato/aristotle), reproductive natural law, etc.

Joining observes many as one, hence God as synthetic is God as 1 with 1 being active synthesis. God exists as an active continuous state of synthesis.

Considering this synthesis is continual, God is neither synthetic nor not synthetic as this continuuity to synthesis necessitates something beyond synthesis as a cause of synthesis.

So synthesis as a form of joining through multiplicity is caused by structure for all deterministic cause are an observation of structure. Structure is cause, as a cause of syntheis for all synthesis occurs through percicevably separate structures as the self cancellation of void.

If God is both being and none being, with God being the equivocation of being and non being, the by default God is defined as equivocation.

We are left with observing the nature of equivocation, from the framework of logic, as a fallacy where 1 exists as many and many as one considering the fallacy of equivocation is a fallacy where many definitions are equated to one.

However, the fallacy of equivocation is left with its own cancelation (as the fallacy of equivocation has multiple definitions) into just equivocation as being a constant.

Equivocation is a continuum in these respects, where all definitions of God as equivalent show them as one continuous definition of God. In a separating respect, these equivocation resulting in multiple definitions of God observes equivocation as formless where what is equivalent is separate and equivocation is reducing to a point of inversion of unity/multiplicity.

Where God exists as equivocation, God is one and many.

1. The radius is the center point of the circle to its circumference.

2. Dividing the circumference by pi results in the diameter

3. It would be equivalent to me saying c/3.141... = d.

4. The radius is half of the diameter.

5. Each radius in itself is a diameter, of another circle.

6. Now if I divide the circumference by Pi, like I said before, I get the diameter.

7. If I multiply the diameter by Pi, I get the circumference.

8. Pi results in both diameter and circumference base upon its relation to each respectively.

9. Now the diameter and circumferance are based upon relative units of measurement (cm, inches, feet, whatever) with these units of measurement being lengths. One length is merely a ratio of the number of time one line fits in or contains another line.

10. The division of circumference by pi, resulting in diameter, observes the circumference as a length being divided by pi into another length of diameter. The diameter, as a length, is multiplied by pi into another length equating to circumference.

11. Pi respectively multiplies/divides lengths into further lengths.

As the mutiplication/division of a length requires another length, Pi is a constant length of a line as regardless of the size of a line relative to another line, a line is always a line.

So I may multiply a 1 line 3 times and get 3 lines as 1 line which is 3 times larger than the original. So in multiplying the original line I fundamentally divided it it 1/3 of a line.

I may divided 1 line into three 1/3 lines. In dividing the line I multiply the original line into being three times larger than the new lines, while multiplying the number of lines.

Regardless of whether the line is multiplied/divided, it stays as a line.

Now considering the line of x is multiplied/divided, in accords with itself, where the line effectively folds inwards (through division) into fraction of itself, or folds outwards (through multiplication) the line is the constant standard for the ratios.

12. For the line to multiply by 3.141... would require the line to contain a set number of ratios in it as other lines in one respect with the number of these ratios existing as one in itself. So I may have a diameter of x, multiply it by pi, and get circumference y, however this new measurement is still one length composed of a specific number of ratios. What changes is the number of lines the line is composed of, as a line is still a line on its own terms.



Therefore in another respect 1 constant line, multiplied by 3.141 would cause a line of length 3.141.

With the original line as 1/Pi of the new line where pi as a length divides the one line into many.

In these respects each line, as a unit defined by its directional qualities is both 1 and Pi and Pi and 1. Pi is a unit of length as one is a unit of length, with both being continuous. All lines as 1 unit of length observes Pi as a unit of length.

The Nature of the Monad is reflected in Pythagoreanism most likely due to his travels rumored towards India, however the evidence for this is controversial, but it reflects variations to Parmenides Holism and the Eastern Philosophies schools of Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, Shuddhadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bheda Abheda, as well as a number of Chinese Philosopher's I cannot count.


This concept of the Monad, in a pluralistic state as Monads, observes the Monad in a multiplicious form under the term atom where this multiplicity is founded in an inherent dualism as opposing forces resulting in multiple localized states in continual flux: Epicureus, Anaxarchus, Democritus, Leucippus, Metrodorus of Chios, Nausiphanes, Heraclitus, Liebniz, etc. as well as a list of eastern schools too long to count.


This concept of God as Both 1 and Many is reflected in a trinitarian concept universally observed in many religions:

Many world religions contain triple deities or concepts of trinity, including:

the Hindu Trimurti
the Hindu Tridevi
the Three Jewels of Buddhism
the Three Pure Ones of Taoism
the Christian Holy Trinity
the Triple Goddess of Wicca

The Shield of the Trinity is a diagram of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
Christianity

The threefold office of Christ is a Christian doctrine that Christ performs the functions of prophet, priest, and king.
The ministry of Jesus lasted approximately three years (27–30 AD[citation needed]).
During the Agony in the Garden, Christ asked three times for the chalice to be taken from his lips.
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his death (Sunday, April 9, 30 AD).
The devil tempted Jesus three times.
Saint Peter thrice denied Jesus and thrice affirmed his faith in Jesus
The Magi – wise men who were astronomers/astrologers from Persia[citation needed] – gave Jesus three gifts.
There are three Synoptic Gospels and three epistles of John.
Paul the Apostle went blind for three days after his conversion to Christianity.

Judaism

Noah had three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth
The Three Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
The prophet Balaam beat his donkey three times.
The prophet Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a large fish
Three divisions of the Written Torah: Torah (Five Book of Moses), Nevi'im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings)[8]
Three divisions of the Jewish people: Kohen, Levite, Yisrael
Three daily prayers: Shacharit, Mincha, Maariv
Three Shabbat meals
Shabbat ends when three stars are visible in the night sky[9]
Three Pilgrimage Festivals: Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot
Three matzos on the Passover Seder table[10]
The Three Weeks, a period of mourning bridging the fast days of Seventeenth of Tammuz and Tisha B'Av
Three cardinal sins for which a Jew must die rather than transgress: idolatry, murder, sexual immorality[11]
Upsherin, a Jewish boy's first haircut at age 3[12]
A Beth din is composed of three members
Potential converts are traditionally turned away three times to test their sincerity[13]
In the Jewish mystical tradition of the Kabbalah, it is believed that the soul consists of three parts, with the highest being neshamah ("breath"), the middle being ruach ("wind" or "spirit") and the lowest being nefesh ("repose").[14] Sometimes the two elements of Chayah ("life" or "animal") and Yechidah ("unit") are additionally mentioned.
In the Kabbalah, the Tree of Life (Hebrew: Etz ha-Chayim, עץ החיים) refers to a latter 3-pillar diagrammatic representation of its central mystical symbol, known as the 10 Sephirot.

Buddhism

The Triple Bodhi (ways to understand the end of birth) are Budhu, Pasebudhu, and Mahaarahath.
The Three Jewels, the three things that Buddhists take refuge in.

Shinto

The Imperial Regalia of Japan of the sword, mirror, and jewel.

Daoism

The Three Treasures (Chinese: 三寶; pinyin: sānbǎo; Wade–Giles: san-pao), the basic virtues in Taoism.
The Three Dantians
Three Lines of a Trigram
Three Sovereigns: Heaven Fu Xi (Hand – Head – 3º Eye), Humanity Shen Nong (Unit 69), Hell Nüwa (Foot – Abdomen – Umbiculus).

Hinduism

The Trimurti: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer.
The three Gunas found in Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy.[15]
The three paths to salvation in the Bhagavad Gita named Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga.

Zoroastrianism

The three virtues of Humata, Hukhta and Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds) are a basic tenet in Zoroastrianism.

Norse mythology

Three is a very significant number in Norse mythology, along with its powers 9 and 27.

Prior to Ragnarök, there will be three hard winters without an intervening summer, the Fimbulwinter.
Odin endured three hardships upon the World Tree in his quest for the runes: he hanged himself, wounded himself with a spear, and suffered from hunger and thirst.
Bor had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Vé.

Other religions

The Wiccan Rule of Three.
The Triple Goddess: Maiden, Mother, Crone; the three fates.
The sons of Cronus: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.
The Slavic god Triglav has three heads.

Esoteric tradition

The Theosophical Society has three conditions of membership.
Gurdjieff's Three Centers and the Law of Three.
Liber AL vel Legis, the central scripture of the religion of Thelema, consists of three chapters, corresponding to three divine narrators respectively: Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
The Triple Greatness of Hermes Trismegistus is an important theme in Hermeticism.


Wikipedia: 3




Now this nature of unity and multiplicity is premised in the foundation of all being fundamentally being directed movement, with this directed movement occurs through a process of repitition or "mirroring" where the movement itself as a constant is reflected through a variety of phenomenon both abstract and empirical. This repitition of these common limits, allows for not just continuity but an inherent connection where symmetry in form and function necessitates a form of unity.

We can see the circle represented in:


1. Pythagorean Monad / Hindu Bindhu.
2. Sun and/or moon Worship in Various Cultures, observed with the Egyptian Aten.
3. Presocratic and Socratic emphasis on the Divinity of the circle.
4. Stonehenge
5. Taoism
6. Muslim Dome of the Rock
7. Circle dance of many cultures, specifically Jewish culture and 3rd world tribes.
8. Philosophers such as Hall, or the Occult book the Kybalion.
9. The 24 philosophers definition of God, with one as sphere.
10. Marcus Aruellius meditations.
11. Platonism
12. Book of Ezekiel Wheels within Wheels
13. The golden rule / "you reap as you sow".
14. Reincarnation
15. Moderation as cycling of extremes.
16. Nichmachean ethics.
17. Ecclesiastes "For everything their is a season".
18. Moral reciprocation (to give x is to receive x)

This is further reflected in natural and artificial phenomena.

1. Orbit of planets and stars.
2. Atoms
3. Circulatory, Respiratory and Nervous system.
4. Alternating current.
5. Seasons and weather patterns of nature.
6. Migratory patterns of birds.
7. Hunting/foraging patterns of wolves, deer, Turkey, etc.
8. Ocean currents
9. Reproduction as cycling of genetic material.
10. Movement of water to clouds to rain.
11. Alternation of emotions.
12. Personal habits
13. Standard conversations.
14. Wheels
15. Flying Saucers
16. Various dance and martial art moves.
17. Cycling action of semi automatic weapons.
18. Ball/puck/marbles
19. Various sports.
20. Mirror Effect in psychology.
21. Eyes, breasts, buttocks, various facets of human body, specifically female. Joint movement.
22. Economic exchange in cultures and between cultures.
23. Alternation of common traits amidst various people (personalities, physical traits)
24. Evolution.
25. Genome.
26. Political Spin.
27. Revolver, rolling, bullet spin.
28. Centrifuge.
29. Gyroscope.
30. Movements of elements.
31. Tornado, whirlwind, whirlpool.
32. Forms of liquids, solids, and gases.
33. Bipolar disorder.
34. Multiple personality disorder.
35. Various rolls for meals or desert.
36. Etc.

X. ALL triads, dualisms, and monads.

To cycle back to the premises:

1. Isomorphism in math and logic.
2. Godel's incompleteness theorems
3. ALL definitons in dictionary cycling back to previous defintion.
4. Addition and multiplication.
5. Wittgenstein observation of sets.
6. Subject-predicate looping in paragraphs.
7. Noun verb alternation in paragraphs.
8. binary code
9. Word through word as sentence, sentence through sentence as paragraph, paragraph through paragraph as page, page as page through book, book through book as volume with all cycling back to words.
10. ALL numbers as cycling of 1, 2 and or 3.
11. ALL languages looping through each other.
12. Set through set, definition through definition, concept through concept, etc.
13. Etc.

That means number is an experience in itself?

Actually, all arguments are variations of the same argument, they are determined by definition which is a progressively expanding circle. No argument is different in these respects, as all argument stems from one comment set of axioms of function and form which determine it.

All arguments are variations of the same thing, but differ due to the entropy of language.

Numbers as pure abstractions cannot exist without an empirical base from which the abstraction arises from, hence the number takes on a directional quality due to the temporal nature of all empirical phenomenon.

In turn all empirical phenomenon formed by number, take for example one using abstract mathematical concepts to form a building, shows that abstraction exists through physicality.


Now 1 as a continuous function can be observed in the respect 1 is defined through the function of addition/subtraction/multiplication/division as well considering:

1 = 3-2,4-3,5-4 to infinity or -2+3, -3+4, -4+5 to infinity
1= (1/2)/(1/2), (1/3)/(1/3), (1/4)/(1/4) to infinity or 2*1/2, 3*1/3, 4*1/4 to infinity

and so on and so forth. 1 is equivalent to continuous addition, subtraction, multiplication and division where 1 is equivalent to an operation in itself as the operation is a constant. 1 takes on a role of function as well as form in these respects as well as being composed of an infinite series of numbers through which it exists.


Here is a response I put on the material as a medial thread but it applies as well here, where 1 is equivalent to a continuous function.

1 is a function through the line, hence 1 is a equivalent to a process of directed movement where the line and 1 are the same through Pi.

All fractals are composed of further fractals as evidence by Pi.

1) Pi is: the symbol π denoting the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter

b : the ratio itself : a transcendental number having a value rounded to eight decimal places of 3.14159265

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Pi+definit ... 1B982EA403


2) Pi is a line between two points that exists from the center point of the circle to the circumference. All lines in turn exists as center points of a circle towards is circumference where all lines exist as the ratio of Pi as 3.14159...


3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi.


4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well.


5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. All functions exists through further functions as 1 function, hence 1 is equivalent to a function that is a continuum. 1 is a continuous function.

Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.

f(x)= 3.14159→(x→∞)
............f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞)
.........................f(x)=...

or


f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞))/( f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞))/(f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞))/…)) = 1


X= a continuous series to infinity where the counting of Pi has stop. X= the limit of Pi as a finite rounded number.


Hence “x = all number with all number equivalent to 1.”

View it this way:

1 is a function through the line, hence 1 is a equivalent to a process of directed movement where the line and 1 are the same through Pi.

All fractals are composed of further fractals as evidence by Pi.

1) Pi is: the symbol π denoting the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter

b : the ratio itself : a transcendental number having a value rounded to eight decimal places of 3.14159265

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Pi+definit ... 1B982EA403


2) Pi is a line between two points that exists from the center point of the circle to the circumference. All lines in turn exists as center points of a circle towards is circumference where all lines exist as the ratio of Pi as 3.14159...


3) The line as composed of infinite points is composed of infinite lines, hence the line is composed of infinite circles as all lines exist as Pi.


4) The line is composed as infinite circles projecting, hence the line is equivalent not just to infinite points but infinite quantum circles as well.


5) Each line, as composed of infinite further lines, is composed of infinite "pi's" where the line as Pi is composed of further Pi's. Hence Pi is divided by an infinite number of Pi being divided by Pi. All functions exists through further functions as 1 function, hence 1 is equivalent to a function that is a continuum. 1 is a continuous function.

Hence Pi dividing itself observes Pi as its own function of self-division conducive to 1 through the line where 1 is Pi as a function of perpetual self division.

f(x)= 3.14159→(x→∞)
............f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞) =1
................f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞)
.........................f(x)=...

or


f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞))/( f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞))/(f(x)= (3.14159→(x→∞))/…)) = 1


X= a continuous series to infinity where the counting of Pi has stop. X= the limit of Pi as a finite rounded number.


Hence “x = all number with all number equivalent to 1.”

I understand long posts are not smiled upon, however your point is not entirely accurate.

Point 8 specifically deals with the nature of the line and 0d point.

Point 11 observes the interdimensional nature of the 1d point and the paradox of the 0d point and 1d point.


1) Pi is the foundation for the circle as infinite lines stemming from a center point, for Pi can be measured from infinite positions within the same circle. Pi as a line, varies in length with the circle however is always the same measurement. The line always exists as one directional and 3.14159.

2) The circumference of a circle as infinite points stemming from a center point, observes the circumference being formed from that center point being infinite lines. The circle as composed of a curved line, with the line being composed of infinite points, still necessitates this definition. However this leads to point 3:

3) The radian, as a curved line which gives the premise of the circle being formed from a curved line, is founded in Pi as a straight line. The line projects to another line of the same length, which exists at 90 degrees to the original line and is curved to the circumference to produce and angle of 57.3 degrees. Considering the radian is premise in an angle, and the angle can be applied in infinite variations within the circle, the circle is composed of infinite lines.

4)All straight lines are Pi and give the foundation of not just the circle as infinite lines, considering Pi can be held in infinite positions within the same circle, but with the circle as a constant infinite lengths of Pi as well with Pi existing as a line. The line is both 1 directional and 3.14159...

5) The circle, through infinite Pi's observes the circle composed of infinite angles with these angles equivalent to degrees as a number much less than one approaching 0. The angle as a degree of "much less than one approaching zero" observes the angle being equivalent to the line where all lines are angles of quantum degrees.

6) The line as a quantum angle, observes the width (not length) of the line as perpetually approaching point zero and hence is sizeless. The circumference of the circle as infinite points, which is still necessitated by a curved line defintion which further necessitates the infinite angles observed in point 3, observes these points connected to the center point of the circle and hence infinite lines.

7) The curved line, as infinite points, can be observed as composed of infinite straight lines forming infinite angles.

8) The line is the projection of a point in one direction, where the 0d point as formless exists as a directive quality. The line takes the nature of directed movement being the foundation of all limits, considering the Pi nature of each line necessitates the line not being infinite but perpetually changing hence moving. The 0d point is strictly void or nothing, hence is given form by direction and movment where direction and movment is the foundation of all limits.

So a line between two points observes the alternation between being and nonbeing (void) where void (0d point) as the inversion of being (where being exists if and only if there is directed movement) into multiple being as multiple lines.

9) To observe the line as a connector between points is to observe the line as non directional. The line as directional observe a projection of one point away from its origins resulting in multiple points. However if the line connects the points, it necessitates that through the line the points are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line becomes non directional considering the points are directed towards eachother through eachother as eachother. The line is absent of directional qualities (negative dimensional) and the point exists pure direction through itself as itself as 1d.


10)Where one line may be infinitely smaller than another line, where relativistically it may equate to a point, each line observed as a line between two point only is still the same infinite line between two points where size is merely a relation between the lines as a relation between multiple infinities. All lines as Pi are infinite.

11) The 1d point as pure being, pure direction, existing through eachother as eachother observes the 1d point as existing through infinite points as an infinite point. The 0d point acts as an inverter of unity/multiplicity and is not anything other than an observation of relation where the 1d point can only be observed in multiples. The 1d point as direction through itself, by its inherent negative dimensional connection, observes this multiplicity by its inversion through the 0d point point. The negative dimensional line in turn is composed of infinite 1d points.

Being appears in a fractured statement when viewed through 0d point space (void) as a veil equivalent to darkness.

The 1d line is an inversion of the negative dimensional line into a line of direction.

However the 1d line cannot connect points because of its one directional nature necessitates a projective nature of point away from point, hence the 1d point cannot project away from itself (as it exists through itself as itself) therefore it must be the 0d point. The 0d point cannot only project past itself by inverting through itself into a 1d nature of the line.

Void must be void of itself, so the 1d line observes the void of void or the 0d point dividing itself as infinity through the line. This 1d line is an inversion of the of both the 0d point through 0d point (or an inversion of inversion) and the -1 dimensional line.

Now the 0d point as nothing, necessitating it as inversive considering it is nothing in itself, inverts itself into the 1d line as a 1 directional unit considering the line is a unit. All units exists through further units as the projective nature of the line occurs if and only if there is somewhere to project to...This necessitates further units. We can see this with the degree existing in relation to further degrees.

The 0d point cancels itself out to units as multiplicity, but also Unity as pure directed movement. Nothing cancels itself out into pure being. However considering this 1d point, as the inversion of inversion, still occurs through the 0d point as an inverter, the 1d point is observed as multiple points existing through eachother as the -1d line. The 0d point, by inverting the 1d point into multiple connected points (still existing as one) inverts the -1d line (as absent of direction in itself resulted from the 1d point observed in multiple position) into 1 directional and seperative.

***will continue.

The application of a number, which in turn forms reality, observes the number shaping reality, hence having a degree of existence in the empirical respect.

For example the abstraction of 1/2 applied to an empirical object results in the object being divided in half. The reverse is true as well, the object divided at center point, results in 1 object moving to two objects. The 1 objective represents a prior unity in time, a potential one in the respect it contains some degree of formlessness, with the 2 objects stemming from it as actual (directed and moving in time).

Now stepping back and looking at the time line in itself as a framework, and observing the 1 object moving to two objects, it can be observed three objects exist as 1 time line (1 object, 2 objects each 1/2 of the prior object).

The nature of time takes on a quantitative role in these regards where the 1 object is a timeline, the 2 objects as 1/2 each of the original, as time lines as well.

The division in the timeline observes a point of one object inverting to many.

Time is its own measuring system, and strictly is directed movement...nothing more or less. The application of time creates new time zones, where each object acts as a time zone in itself as itself.


However, the difference between abstract and empirical phenomenon leads to some problems when both are observed as both directed and moving.

Yes and No.



The point projecting to a point as point results in a 1d point. For example if projected in one direction it becomes a 1 directional line. The one directional line project in all directions in one direction becomes the circle. The nature of the point is defined by its projection in one direction, in both cases.

So point A projecting to point B Results in this extradimensional nature.

Point B projecting to point A Results in this same extradimensional nature.

Point A to Point B and Point B to point A shows a from of alternation in time where The line changes directions through a form of repetition. Now this repitition is dependent upon the point as extradimensional.

If point A and Point B are directed towards eachother simultaneously, with this alternation occurring at a rate of infinity the line takes one an intradimensional nature through the points. It is not a two directional line, as this would require the two directional line to extend from a center point of 0 (like the number line) and the issues of alternation continues.

So A and B are directed towards eachother simultaneously and the line acts as a connector between the points, where prior the projection shows the point moving away from the point resulting in the line. The point moving towards the point, as a point, connected through the line:

1) observes the point existing through Points as 1 pure direction. The point exists through the point as point and exists on its own terms.

2) The multiple points, connected through the line, as 1 point observes the 1 unified point being observed through multiplicity as an approximation of it. This cannot occur for the 0d point as it is strictly void. The 1d point would be pure being. This line, as a connector, does not have any directional qualities in itself except through the point being directed towards itself as itself; hence the line as absent of direction takes an -1 dimensional nature.

3. The 0d point as nothing inverts completely to everything as 1d pure movement.

The 1d line as directional inverts to the -1d line as negative directional. The 1d line does not invert back to the 0d point specifically because the 1d line is not pure direction. It's extradimensional nature, projecting away from itself, necessitates a dual intradimensional counterpart. Projecting away from origin and project too origin are inversive duals. Hence the intradimensional line, as negative dimensional, exists as the points moving towards eachother as point.

The 1d line, as projective/extradimensional, exists as a dual to the -1d line as non-projective/intradimensional.

The circle, composed of infinite -1d lines, observes infinite points existing through 1 point as a point.

I agree with much of the above stated, with this nature of matter being of relatively significant value in the face of the materialistic society we live in today.

To understand "matter", not necessarily limited physics specifically, is to understand not just the nature of our reality, and the inherent problems it curtails, but society itself.

To equate matter as a medium, or center point of origin, leaves us with a necessary understanding of point space being the foundation of any concept of the atom.

If we look at the atom, as strictly a part which is composed of and composes further parts, as evidenced by physics (with fields taking on the same nature due to their existence and relation to further fields) we are reduced to point space.

Take an atom, or part, observe it from a distance and it is reduced to a point. Look at the atom closer and we see it, due to its curvature/angulature, it is composed of further atoms/parts that effectively equate to point space. Look at these atoms/parts closer and the point space continues.

What we understand of the atomist perspective is continual point space as the foundation for not just the atom but relativistivally is the atom as well. Where atoms are composing/composed of further atoms, points exist in the same function and manner.

One point inverts to many and many invert to one, with the point and atom simply being a median of inversion or change through which movement occurs. The point/atom as composed of and composing further points necessitate a relativistic nature of a field where the point composed of further point effectively acts as a boundless field or void conducive to a 0d point.

The point/field acts as a means of inversion between a unity/multiplicity which is the foundation for all phenomenon.

0d Point space would give logical foundation to dark matter, black holes, but elements of the human psyche that exists through this material medium; hence a far reaching effect occurs that gives a hopeful notion of unity within the sciences.

However the 0d point, or void conducive to the presocratic notion of the apeirion, as nothingness necessitates a form of relation as nothingness cannot be observed on its own terms except relative to being. The 0d point/darkmatter/blackholes/void is the foundation of relativity in these regards considering as "inversive" it is nothing or "mass" on its own terms which cannot be observed without contradiction.

As inversive of being, 0d point space exists as a dual to being with being being necessitated through directed movement requiring an "inversion of inversion" as an ethereal point space. This ethereal point space, as pure infinite movement as unchanging can be equated to not just a foundational glue to being (reminiscent of the Hindu akashic record) but being itself through a 1d point.

The 0d point effectively inverts the 1d point to many points, with the 1d point existing as one point considering void is nothing (which takes into account relativity and quantum connection simultaneously) and what exists as 1 through many is effectively the same. A point in locality A is still the same point in locality B considering the composition of both points is still composed of the same points and existing within a singular point field.

And I will cut it off here to keep it short.

true words.


In regards to the premise post in thread:

One should seek both happiness and non happiness. Suffering is pointless on its own terms, so is happiness, meaning is all encompassing.

Some studies show people with meaningful lives have less inflammation than those with sorrowful or happy lives. Seek balance between extremes by embracing both at once.

directed movement is the only rational ontology I can observe, unless you see something different. I am trying to be proven wrong.

thanks for the objective statement...lol.

Part of logic is attaching an inherent symbolism to concepts with the quantity and quality of the symbols determining the nature of not just the reasoning but the language as well.

For example observing a standard "and" or "or" symbol symbol in certain logics (I can't put it up because of the ipad) gives not just an intuitive persception of the connectors but determines the language. "And" may be one word, both/and while similar is a separate concept.

Certain languages have multiple meanings for a word/symbol while others have less. The symbolic nature of the language, and it's inherent meanings attached determine the nature of the language. Some languages, such as German, are reputed to be more precise than English. In turn we see the German cultures having a higher degree of precision in mashing, logic/philosophy than there English counterparts.

In these respects the symbol takes on the nature of an art form relative to the culture, and while an expression of the culture is a means of forming it through time.

In a separate respect,

While the language may be the same, under this example, the books may not reflect the nature of the reality they live in. A Greek book may reflect barbarian tribes as cruel while the interactions with the natives may reflect a more of a curiosity (rather than savagery) on part of the natives.

The book may argue certain chemical combination for gun powder, but in light of little resource the settlers may have to find some alternative means of creating it.

While that "logic" may be wrong to the outside civilization, it will still exist as a framework which determines the movements of that community.

Or they may learn there own logic in the respect the books do not line up with the various abstract and empirical realities they deal with.

I apologize for the long post ahead of time, however in this case it may be a necessary "evil".



We see "number" in the universe relative to the symbolic context in which we apply it, for the symbol acts as a medial point between the observer and what is being measured.

The problem occurs in the respect of the symbol itself and not just interpretation, but how it reflects "our" perception of reality and in these respects takes on a subjective context, that while objective in many circumstances, does not necessarily mirror the objective nature of reality we observe it through.

The question of "perceiving" a number, as an empirical entity (with empiricism being founded in directed movement), is a question of observing not just directed movement but universal symbols that reflect that directed movement.

Considering the linear nature of time necessitates a 1 dimensional nature, where this 1 dimensional nature effectively observes "1 as directed movement" through the line, it may be logically argued that the 1 dimensional line and "1" are both the same literally and symbolically.

We can observe this in the quantification of any temporal object is fundamentally an observation of time and numerical with number having a relativistic nature of part through part.

So if I see 1 orange, I see one direction in time.

If I see two oranges I see 2 times zones, or two directions in time, where these 2 directions in time still exist as 1 direction considering this is "one" 2 (if you understand what I am saying here).

So while time may be linear, but the line exists relative to other lines with these multiple lines observing multiple directions which may be off by just a quantum of a degree, time as linear results in time as multdirection effectively leading to a circle or sphere as "all directions" as 1. In these respects 1 takes on a dual role of constant and absolute truth through the "Monad" while observing a relativistic nature of "Monads"(atoms) that again exist through linear directions in themselves.

The nature of number alternates between a relativistic notion and one of absolute truth, where each finite reality is but an extension (or approximation) of an infinite one.

So if we quantify all of reality as "one" we are left with instead of a line, a 1d point existing as pure movement. The point exists through a point as a point and in turn can only be observed approximately as a boundless field in one respect while the connection of the points existing through eachother through lines without direction (negative dimensional).

Then you have the question of frequencies as literal numbers being alternating lines as a 1 dimensional line inverts to another.

So an angle observes 2 directions as 1 direction in the respect the angle is still directed and exists as a line in itself when viewed from far enough away. The concept of the "degree" which all angles are composed of becomes relativistic as a degree is strictly the number of geometric shapes which fit in a circle.

The foundation of the "degree" as a relation of geometric forms.

1) The circle is the universal form through which all forms exist.

x) The triangle, as three points, exists 120 times within a circle of 360 degrees with each point acting as a degree in itself. Hence as 120 times the angles which form the interior of the triangle (from the center point) form the interior of the triangle as 120 degrees.

2) The square, as four points, exists 90 times within a circle of 360 degrees with each point acting as a degree in itself. Hence as 90 times the angles which form the interior of the square exist as internal 90 degrees.

3) The pentagon, as five points, exists 72 times within a circle of 360 degrees with each point acting as a degree in itself. Hence as 72 times the angles which form the interior of the pentagon exist as internal 72 degrees.

4) The hexagon exists 60 times with an internal degree of 60.

5) The septagon exists 51.4287 times with an internal degree of the same.

6) The octagon exists 45 times with an internal degree of the same.

7) The nonagon exists 40 times with an internal degree of the same.

8) The Decagon exists 36 times with an internal degree of the same.

9) The 1 directional line exists 360 times as 1 degree with the 2 directional line existing 180 times as an observation of 180 degrees.

All degree, through angulature, exists as relation and is subject to the number of relations measured, hence the degree changes with the number of "x" shapes applied to the circle. Measurement itself is relativistic.

Yet the degree is still a line and is 1 dimensional, so what we understand of the number as a line is strictly 1 as relative units.


The frequency, in the respect it is composed of multiple alternating lines within a give framework is still projection in one direction as well, with the frequency appearing as a 1 dimensional line from a different framework. The 1 dimensional line can be observed as a quantum frequency necessitating all "1's" are composed of a finite set of numbers in themselves where "relatively speaking" a "1" may not be the same to another "1" as the first 1 may be composed of 1/1, 2/2, 3/3 to infinity and the second one may be equal to (1±x)/(1±x), (2±x)/(2±x), (3±x)/(3±x) to infinity.

Curvature equates strictly a series of approximate angles, which appear as angles relative to some limit of a different size.

So while reality observes number in a literal sense, because an localization results in a simultaneous clarity and ambiguity number takes on a possibilistic, potential and random (approximate) sense as well.

Number exists as

1) a causal (with cause being structure) and random duality.
2) actualized locality (part or atom) and potential locality.
3) limit (directed movement) and possible limit (no-limit as no directed movement).


This argument may seem a little ambiguous because of the large amount of information in one section, and may be elaborated on.

In simpler terms, "number" is perpetually moving and hence because it is perpetually moving it is constant, but relatively ambiguous at the same time when we localize any phenomenon. While we may be able to continual quantify number not all number is quantifiable relative to time.

If a number exists, due to empirical sense (where I see an orange and apply "1" or "2" as a quantity to it), what I am observing is the phenomena being directed through time in 1 direction where the number existing because of the empirical phenomena (and the empirical phenomena existing because of the number as I may make 1 division in an empirical object resulting in 2 objects) because an observation of time and has a directional quality because of it.

Numbers are directed movements in the finite sense, where the absolute nature of number occurring through "infinite directed movement" as a constant limit.

Infinite movement, as perceivable no movement, can be equated to a wheel spinning at the rate of infinity where while it is moving is observed as "still" and "constant"; hence number has a dual state of absolute truth and relative finite truth (with finiteness being multiple infinities).

The quantification of all empirical phenomena, where the nature of number is dependent upon empirical sense, necessitates the number existing as directed movement through the object as being a movement in time as 1 directional.

All numbers are directed movements.

I have my own argument, but I will save it.

What if God both exists and does not exist?

The question I pose is "proof is?" (with it being posed in such a way considering "what" makes the question irrational by leaving out who,when,where,how,why.)

It still requires a form of negation if perspective is the premise point of the argument. Perspective requires the negation of non-perspective.

The negation of "everything" results in a continuation of nothing, as nothing is merely an inversion of being.

The negation of nothing, while resulting in being, still requires a continual negation of nothing considering the negation of being results in nothing in one respect. Any form of negation results in a infinite regress.

The God argument, results in a continuum, with this continuum being infinite resulting in a definition reflective of God. The dialect of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, qualitative positive existence/negative existence/neutral existence , or even a quantitatve 1/0/Possible observes this nature of the argument (through different degrees of perspective) as having a triadic nature resulting in a continuum.

This continuum as a definition of God, observes God as having a triadic nature where God is perpetually synthetic.

The question of perspective leads to what is the right perspective, or even if there is one. This argument not only results in a continuum of perspectives, but through this multiplicity the nature of perspective is a continuum...This is considering this argument itself is a continuum. Under these terms we are left with the premise, which even in the face of contradiction maintains this form and still justifies itself as rational (I may have to elaborate on this sentence), that all perspective is directed movement.

God, existing through perspective hence as perspective, is pure movement. Under these premises where God is pure movement, we are left with a Platonic/Pythagorean/presocratic atomist argument at minimum, where God can be premised in the Monad(s).

Because of this Monad(s) foundation God, much like the triadic synthetic nature argued above, God exists through the Triad of the Point, Line, Circle (which where observed as divine in themselves in much of presocratic/socratic/post Socratic philosophy) which exist as infinite directed movement as no movement.

That is actually a legitimate and fair question: Does an ignorant person know they are ignorant?

Yes and No.

My argument:

1) We all are aware that we are aware; hence we all know something; hence because of this reflective quality in knowledge the question of ignorance comes down to choosing to reflect or not to reflect.

2) If one is aware that they do not know everything then they are aware of there ignorance. If one claims they are aware of everything then they claim to know a framework of knowledge that encapsulates knowing.

3) To be convinced the framework they are aware of is all encompassing and they know everything in that framework is to be ignorant of the nature of the framework being composed of and composing further frameworks.

4) This ignorance of the nature of the framework as repeating through other frameworks is an absence of reflection in thought with reflection in thought being the formation of thought through repitition.

For example I think of x.

I observe that x is directed towards y.

Now y may be directed towards z but is also directed back towards x.

X and y are connected; however as connected they form a.

Z is directed to z1 but in turn is directed back to y.

Z and y are connected as b

Z is also directed back to x, through y, as b1.

And so on and so forth.

5) What we observe in this thought process is a form of defintion through connection and seperation (with separation being the projection of one variable away from itself towards another). We also observe the maintainance of variables in anothet respect along with tne dissolution of variables into firther variables.

This act of reflection observes the variable as it is directed towards another variable. Reflection in turn, in brief terms, is the direction of one's observations which effectively gives them form and function. Reflection, is a form of structure what one knows and does not know with knowing existing through structures/order.

6) Now considering knowledge is premised in reflection, with Socrates arguing that definition of man as being one who reflects, ignorance is premised in an absence of reflection as knowledge is the repitition of limits as structure with knowledge itself being order.

7) For one to be ignorant of his ignornance would be for him to be ignorant of the fact he reflects, or ceasing to reflect on the fact he reflects. Now this argument may stem further, necessitating that All men:

1) know
2) are absent of knowing
3) are ignorant of their ignorance

All at the same time in different respects considering it is premised in a depth of perception that exists through a penetrative act of will. So knowledge and will are interlinked in these respects because of the nature of reflection.

So men who are ignorant of their ignorance may do so from weakness, choice and the inhernet formless nature of the subjective nature within the self.

To accuse someone of a word salad is to project ones own ignorance.

First, you have no argument of value as evidence in the last post. If you do not like the longer version, that is fine, but address the briefer version. If you want to debate the paradox of the square circle elsewhere, just create the thread and pm me when it is ready.


But considering that is too much, here is a shorter version you can start with:

To know ignorance is to know; hence knowledge.

We can start from there.