BELOW is a longer version of the argument, but here is a simple point if you do not wish to read: Ignorance as an absence of knowledge necessitates a positive nature of knowledge to exist as one cannot negate without there being a positive. There is only knowing.



Pronouncing is an argument. Asking questions are also arguments consider a question has multiple answers determined by the question itself.

We are not talking about square circles, and if we are we would be observing a relation between a square and circle as "1" relationship.

Ignorance as an absence of knowledge observes absence as a deficiency. A deficiency observes a state of relation; hence multiplicity. For example I may observe a deficiency in red, but this deficiency of red is determined relative to another color. Hence a deficiency in red is a relationship between one color as existing and red as determining that color by its non-existence. Red as deficient is red as a negative boundary.

So using the above example of color we can observe a form of multiplicity in color between red and x color.

Ignorance, as an absence of knowledge, in turn exists as a form of knowing in itself (For if one know they are ignorant they know they are separate from knowledge; hence observing knowledge generally and the self are a part of that knowledge). Ignorance if known, is knowledge, but not complete knowledge; hence a part of it. As a part it necessitates a form of multiplicity for a part exists through other parts. A part is an observation of multiplicity.

In these terms to observe a part of knowledge is to observe a gradation of knowledge as unified, with these parts existing through gradation being grades in themselves. Because ignorance, as gradation and a part of knowledge, exists as a part it cannot exist on its own terms without some knowledge already being there.

To argue a form of agnosticism where one cannot know is in itself to set a premise for knowing. Agnosticism as an absence of knowing is still knowing.

If God is to be negated so must all definitions of God be negated. One definition of God, taking out of account the continual progressive definitions of God, is "Everything and Nothing" where Everything must be negated, along with Nothingness (which I may have to elaborate on further).

The God argument is just beginning under these terms as argument both stems from a moves towards a point of synthesis through extremes/opposition/Hegelian thesis/antithesis.

Ignorance as an absence of knowledge is merely observing a gradation of knowledge. One cannot negate knowledge without fundamentally resulting in a form of multiplicity.

Ignorance can only be observed as an absence considering it exists dually to knowledge. It is not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation, hence separation. One who is ignorant is one who is separated from knowledge.

To exercise ignorance one must know what it is they practice. The question remains, what is ignorance?

And what is ignorance?

It will both give you the opportunity to think and give you a framework to think in; hence take a program where you are able to embody all the philosophies as much as you can. Thought forms perspective, perspective carves out reality from a state of ignorance into a more balanced and meaningful structure in which to live.

It is a good foundation degree for a master's (law, psychology, mathematics, etc.) and institutions such as the FBI or secret service, I "think" the secret service specifically if and only if memory serves, favor it.

Pursuing knowledge is never a wasted effort in a world which is founded in confusion and negative diversity.

x

5) All Axioms are Infinite and Finite

This nature of the axiom as being premised in the “limit” through its directive capacity as both circular and linear necessitates a continuity in this “directive capacity” considering a self maintained circularity and linear progressiveness exists if and only it is infinite; hence limit exists through no-limit where the self-negation of no-limit, through its own absences of form and function, results in the limit. The limit continues a progressive movement through the negation of origin (as a limit in itself) while maintains itself through the absence of limit being the negative boundary which gives form to limit.


-Infinity as Limit of reason.
-Empirical Phenomena as Infinite through Line as Foundation.
**** extend

4) All Axioms Act as Points of Unity and Inversion, Hence are Respectively Axiomatic and Non-Axiomatic./b]

As both self-maintained unity and progressive unit(s) the axiom observes a dualistic nature where its inversion between the one and many is non-axiomatic as an absence of axiom; which is conducive:

1) Qualitatively to Unity and quantitative 1 being a foundation of connection from which the axiom as connected to all axioms is in itself all axioms through a self direction as connection and maintainance.

2) Qualitatively to nothingness and quantitative 0 being a foundation of inversion from which the axiom as nothing is in itself inversive of other axioms through a self negation as seperation and dissolution.

3) Qualitatively unity/nothingness and quantitatively 1/0 the axiom exists as fundamentally a point of origin in all phenomenon.

1d Point as Foundation of Unity
0d Point as Foundation of Multiplicity

******* extend

Depression is passive Anger with Anger/Depression rooted in unmet desires and/or needs.

Whether you are being serious or not (I cannot tell with your language), the answer actually is "sort of" and I would have to agree somewhat with you.

The multidimensional as one dimensional nature resulting resulting in "life" simultaneously observes this one dimensional (one as in being unified considering the argument is splitting hairs) nature existing through many others.

In this respect one dimensionality is composed of and composes multiple dimensions. This in turn exists as one in itself and the process continually alternates from here. Under these terms when dealing with unity and multiplicity we are left with simultaneous projective and circular directive capabilities which form the phenomena themselves and we are left with the nature of self-defense, or the axiom, as being premised in limits as directed movements.

What you are observing with reproduction and feeding are simultaneous multiplication and division. In multiplying an organism divides itself. In feeding the object is divided and the organism is multiplied. In reasoning, the feeding and reproduction cycle through eachother.

All movement as relative to context is an absolute, as context is absolute. While the movement may be relative to a specific context, that context determines its movement in a constant manner. The double slit experiment, as a framework, has three variables which determine the wave movement of the particles:

1) the double slit.
2) the particles themselves.
3) time.

The quantum of energy "rippling" through the field observes the "ripple" as a movement synonymous to a frequency as alternating movement. This is considering all frequencies are premised in alternation.

This quantum of energy, or a localization of it, is still a particle.

The the particle/wave dualism can be argued as a localization of a field where the difference is a context of time.

If observing a localized quantum of energy up close it will appear as particle considering this "closesness" observes the particle with a specific framework of time with this time merely being a set of relations. Take for example is I look at a ripple in a pool up close, I see the crest move from one spot to another.

If viewed from a distance the ripple in a pool acts as a wave but as an individual wave is still a "particle" in the respect it is part of other waves.

The distance of the observation determines its localization, as the localization is a distance.


Now considering the particle and wave appear randomly, one alternates at some unidentifiable frequency (Considering the alternation between particle and wave is still a frequency), even though the framework of observation is still the same distance. This would necessitate the fields alternate distances between the observer.

Using the pool example again, it one it to look at the individual crests of the waves as a particle, then we can observe it as formed of waves in itself.

So I can observe a framework and see both particles as crests of the wave and simultaneous waves as multiple particles. Each relation of parts effectively is its own time zone with a time zone. It would be like looking at a clock and seeing one hand move from one degree to another. This degree would represent the particle. However the space between the degrees on the clock hand would be a wave of quantum degrees. Under these premises some particles would be smaller than another, so if an electron exists as both a particle and a wave(ripple in field), the electron as a particle can be greater or smaller in size than other electron particles.

In these respects the atomic perspective has a trifold nature of particle/wave/field where each alternates through the other as a framework.



Time is determined by distance in this case, with distance merely being a relation in parts. With distance determined by the observer, the object being observed and the framework in which it is observed (with this framework having a specific distance in itself) and so on and so forth.


Movement is merely particulation where an object individuates (multiplies/divides simultsneously) by inverting between unified and multiple states.

Take for example I see a particle "moving" from position "A" to position "B". The particle is effectively the replication of individual localities as the movement between A and B observes A to A.1 to A.2 to A.3, etc. all the way to position B. Now A.1 is composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc with each containing a localization in its own right. So the movement of the particle is the replication of localities are particles in themselves so that when we see the particle move from A to B we are observing the particle as multiple localities replicating, where the particle is composed of and composes further particles.

Movement in these terms is inversion of one to many and many to one in these respects. Where the particle as moving inverts from one locality to another locality as many localities. Simultaneously the many localities the particle is composed of (using the example of A.1 being composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc.) Invert to one locality.

This corresponds to the particle/wave/field triad in the above examples. In these respects my argument is supported.

Its a dangerous problem because to argue with someone because they follow a dogma rather than reason, is still to necessitate reason as a form of dogma considering both dogma and reason observe inherent rules or structure.

Dogma is inevitable in one form or another.

Rationality necessitates a form of connectivity in these respects where the opponents, and your own position, must be fully observed to observe any reflective qualities. This is considering Rationality, from the work "ratio", necessitates a form of proportionality or balance.

When a person strictly disagrees only, without any opportunity for finding a common bond, then the person negates themselves from the argument. The same occurs if they only agree. For the process of reasoning with a person to take place both elements must progress.

Reasoning as a synthetic element in this respect, along with common mirroring qualities, and relativistic nature where neither side is complete on there own terms as each position is a part.

I would not call it a native language but rather real, real basic relativity...you should know this considering your...lol...screenname...maybe you should Google that...that and language being relativistic in nature.

If particle A and B collide:

1) If we observe this from the fixed point of A, then B is moving directly to A in 1 direction with B moving away from a fixed focal point from which its course began.

2) If we observe this from the fixed point of B, then A is moving directly to B in one direction with A moving away from a fixed focal point from which its course began.

3) If we observe this from a fixed framework of Z, A and B are directed away from there fixed focal point towards eachother at the same time.

The movement of one particle to another:

A) Results in the particles projecting away from eachother from the fixed point of them meeting, each in one direction.

B) Results in the particles uniting and taking a new course of direction, projected away from there point of meeting.

C) Results in the particles individuating (multiplying/dividing simulatneously) into further particles which project away from there point of meeting.


The projection of the particles starts from a point of origin (the particle meeting another particle) towards another point (the particle meeting another particle). At each point of origin the particle fundamentally "inverts" by change from one direction to another where:

1) Moving from a previous set of multiple directions to one new direction.
2) Moving from one direction to multiple further directions.
3) From a larger framework of time points 1 and 2 happen simultaneously in different respects.

Either way the particle cannot exist without its relation to further particles with this relation necessitating movement.

Considering this particle exists if and only if it is moving, and this movement is determined by the projection from locality to another in one direction, the premise of the particle existing at all is dependent upon its directed movement giving it form. In these respects all particulate are premised in linear movement as extradimensional projection.

The particles exist as projection, hence "the particles as projecting to further particle" can be synonymous to the projection of projection to further projection.


Now in reference to intelligence, considering the particle as movement originates from a linear movement and what we understand of the nature of consciousness as having an inherent nature of measurement by separating and connecting phenomenon through lines, the particles reflect this same foundation of consciousness.

The particles as projecting to further particle reflects the same linear nature we use for measurement, with the nature of consciousness as composed of particles observing this same form and function. Consciousness cannot be separated from a particulate nature.

all being composed of particles, by that definition is complex. All lifeforms also suffer entropy, and relative to time the particles "bounce off of eachother".

What other definitions of intelligence do you think works?

Fair enough.

But first, what is "seemingly intelligent" mean? We know if quarks are a portion of consciousness and we observe quarks, the quarks are cycling through eachother as a foundation of that consciousness.

Empirical sense alone is dependent strictly on the unfolding of time, hence all empirical truths are not just probabalisitic but not definable completely except outside of time, with observing a phenomenon from a separate time zone still resulting in a time line in itself.

As argued above, all particles result in point space.

The point is both irreducible and an act of inversion (changing a unified phenomenon into multiple phenomena). All points leads to further points, with the point being constant as one point is the same as another. However this process of the point as being constant observes it as continual inversion.

The "flower", in the above example, is effectively nothing in itself but a point in space as it is merely a means of inversion to further flowers.

One aspect of consciousness is "inversion" where unity changes to multiplicity and vice versa. It is how we measure phenomena. This inversive nature to consciousness is premised in point space as strictly "void" where this "no dimensionality as no-limit" effectively exists as a founding nature of consciousness.

Well I will use this example and if it does not work, I will apply another.

explain(explanation)
explain (explanation(explanation))
explain(explanation(explanation(explanation))) — eodnhoj7

When one explains a phenomenon they give definition to the phenomena. This definition of the phenomena observes it as existing for what it is and allows us to interact with this phenomena. So I may observe a flower empirically through the senses. I can see, feel, taste, smell and hear certain qualities dependent upon my application of these senses.

However these explanations/definitions in and of themselves mean nothing. So I apply a sense of reasoning, through thought or emotion, where these qualities of the flower are connected or separated from other qualities.

Now this nature of sensing through explanation/definition, I may connect/separate one quality of the flower to maybe another.

What is observed is observed through further observations where I may observe one flower, which leads to another in a progressive linear movement where one flower is directed to another as a form of progression through multiplicity.

Now this new flower which further helps define the first, as a sensed/defined phenomena, in turn cycles back to the original flower where qualities are observed as connected and one and the same.

Now each flower in and itself is nothing unless we progressively observe further flowers and these further flowers cycles back on the original/non-original flowers. In these respects each flower as a foundation for the progress to further flowers and the cycling back to the original flower is in itself nothing, or rather a "point of origin" through which the further flowers exist as one (circular and self-referential) and many (linear progression).

This linearism/circularity in which we observe the flower, and explain/define it, observes a simultaneously nature through the senses where a feeling progresses to a thought and thought to feeling, etc.

I may have to explain further.

The explanation of behavior, through behavior, is strictly the consciousness mirroring itself (a process of repetition, similar to the Russian Doll but not the same).

To explain consciousness would cause a mirror effect where:

we:

explain(explanation)
explain (explanation(explanation))
explain(explanation(explanation(explanation)))

and so on and so forth.

This process of explanation in turn takes on directive qualities in itself.

1) Linear progression
2) Circular Self-Referentiality
3) Point of inversion where one concept turns to many as each concept itself is nothing.

The nature of consciousness is premised in certain limits which are fundamentally directed movement.

We can see references of this mirroring process in the Pythagorean argument of the Monad(s) mirroring itself, along with the mirror effect in social behavior.

Intelligence is fundamentally limits existing through limits where depth of consciousness, premised in the repetition of limits, is premised in basic "frequency" as a repetition of directed movements. These directed movements are premised in the basic point, line and circle.

Under these terms all of creation has some degree of consciousness with the nature of higher consciousness dependent upon a form of self-referentiality or "loops".

We are still left with the paradox where there are multiple fields existing through further fields, where each fields effectively is a part or "particle" of another field.

Looking at an irreducible particle you are left with point space as the particle must be reduced ad-infinitum until they are reduce merely to point space. In a second respect the particle continually being reduced to leaves point space as a constant and point space acts as a divider between the progression of one part to another.

In these respects the atom is both point space and a divider/multiplier as one atom is both composed of and composes further atoms equating the atom as a point of inversion between multiple atoms and the fractal atoms which compose the multiple atoms.

If you continually divide a point you are left with infinitely further points which are all the same point considering there is no difference between one point and another. A point in x locality is the same as a point in y locality with x and y localities being points relative to the further locality of z. A point is a point regardless of its position with all points being compose of an infinite number of points.

As all points are composed of an infinite number of points each point acts as its own field without boundaries.

The particle-wave (with all waves as fields) duality is solved in this respect: as a particle and field are both dualistic notions of point space. This dualism of a point and field can be solve through the point maintaining directive qualities through the line or circle.

So a line between two points observes the line in a third field of point space when observed as only a line between two points. However the line must continue through further lines of it is to project, and a separate argument continued which I won't get into because I addressed it elsewhere.

In a separate respect the circle (or maybe more accurately put "monad") as a point in center and infinite points around it as 1 point, observes the circle existing (again on it as own terms, even though the circle must progress much like the line) in a point field.

This can be observe in a simple exercise where one images any object approaching a point. The continual approach of a line to a point results in the line being surrounded by the very same point it is progressing towards when the point effectively becomes a "void" or "dimensionless field".

A point field is merely "void", which this void being observed through a continuing limit such as a line (a circle projecting through a void still results in a linear structure as a line). So a line may exist between two points but these two points, observed through the line, exist as a localization of a point field.

I probably should elaborate on one of these arguments.

3. All axioms are in themselves limits, through their directive nature with these statements being directive(s). These limits are both composed of and composing further limits through the limit itself; hence the limit maintains a dual extradimensional progressive linear nature and an intradimensional self-maintain circular nature, with the axiom existing through the axiom. The axiom through the axiom, which is an axiom in itself, observes the axiom as both self-maintained unity as 1 and relating localities (parts/units) as 1 providing the limit of Unity and Multiplicity.

Because the axioms is directed from one axiom to another, with the axioms all referring back to their source axioms, the axiom takes on a directive nature where it projecting away from itself and then cycling back reflects the axiom as a limit in itself. The axiom, through axioms, as axiom existing through a circular and linear nature observes the axiom fundamentally as a limit, with limit being directed movement.

Hence the axiom defined as limit, with this statement existing as an axiom, necessitates all limits as axioms. This alternation between axiom (as self-evidence) and limit (as directed movement) observes both as inherently connected and one and the same leading to further questions as to the nature of consciousness.

What is deemed as axiomatic, or self-evident, necessitates not just an understanding of conscioussness but consciousmess existing as an through limit, which necessitates consciousness and directed movement being 1 and the same.

The nature of the axiom as both self and evident, reflects a further nature of subjectivity and objectivity where the axiom is both subjective and objective in nature.

The question of subjectivity and objectivity comes into play. What is subjective is fundamentally absent of limit and hence structure. What is objective has limit and structure.

To build off of this point:

1) All subjective experiences are personal, they are limited to the individual and only the individual knows them. This may be some thought, feeling, empirical perception, etc. Because only the individual knows them they are not universal. Also these subjective states are in a continual degree of change. What a person may feel at one moment may in effect change to something else and so on and so forth. The subjective experience is fundamentally absent of definition.

2) All objective experiences are shared between people, they act as common medians where people with non uniformed subjective states maintain some degree of uniformity in This as states, in simpler terms people are aware of the same thing and the subjective state is fundamentally canceled as it is not limited to the self alone but has structure according to the various people which observe it.

For example a person may have a specific feeling, so they attach a word to this feeling. A person who has the same feeling will observe this word as a limit which gives boundary to this feeling. The subjective state of both individuals becomes objectified through the word with the word acting as a common limit to these two states effectively negating a strict subjective nature. This word further objectifies these subjective states, but giving form to them, when people who not just feel a certain way, but act, express emotion physically, etc ties these "movements" to not just the emotion but the word itself.

The word as an objectification of the feeling gains more structure when various forms of symmetry in personal actions show the feeling as having common limits, hence the word is attached not just to something subjective but various actions that show the feeling is the same.

So a person may feel "happy" and uses the word "happy" to define his state of feeling. Another person may also feel the same but only connects the feeling of happy with the word "happy" when observing that happy people reflect certain constants such as smiling, laughing, feeling at ease in there posture, etc. So when that person feels the same way, they use the word "happy" to describe it. Now a person may say to themselves "I feel happy" to themselves when feeling such an emotion which effectively gives limits to the feeling itself and objectifies it in such a manner where the person is able to gain structure in themselves. This word may be said, verbally or through thought, or may simply be and image in the mind that is symbolic, but the subjective feeling is encapsulated in a limit regardless.

This limit gives structure not just to the subjective state but gives form to it in such a manner where the subjective state is able to be directed inwards through the act of self reflection or outwards to others forming them as well. The objectification of the subjective experience effectively is to give it a form and function where it acts as a connective limit to others while giving structure to the self.

3. In these respects, subjectivity is that which is formless and objectivity is that which as form.

Subjectivity is individual in the regards it is undefined aspect of the self.

Objectivity is individual in the regards it is a definition of the self through the self, giving the self structure.

The individual is both subjective and objective in these respects where the person is simultaneously defined and undefined with the act of the self directed through the self giving objective structure which exists through the subjective formless nature of the self. This unlimited aspect of the subjective self, through which the objective nature of the self exists, observes the objective as unlimited through the subjective where people continually manifest limits so to speak.

Objectivity becomes group oriented when people use a definition so to speak as a common bond that gives form to there subjective states.

Subjectivity is group oriented when people are absent of definition for a specific phenomenon and have no agreement as to its definition.

The group is both subjective and objective in these respects where the group is simultaneously is defined and undefined with the group existing through the group giving the group structure objectively through the subjective formless nature of the group.


The individual and group are connected in these respects as the subjective and objective nature replicate eachother in a manner where the self direction of the individual and the group gives inherent structure, while the alternation of the individual directed towards a group and the group directed towards the individual shows a nature of inversion between the two that defines them.

The nature of the individual/group takes on a from of intradimensional and extradimensional movement where individual and group conscious reflect various degrees of directed movement in such a manner where the point, line and circle act as the foundations of consciousness in not just giving origin to both ****, but effectively giving definition through connection and separation while maintaining and dissolving the groups respectively.

The individual/group acts as as merely directed movement where one is directed away from itself (as individual to separate individual, individual to group, group to individual or group to separate group.) through a form of progress in which the individual/group is directed past itself to a respective individual/group effectively giving it structure and separating it.

For example an individual rises above the self objective self towards a further objectively structured self by projecting away from the original self. This projection away from the original objective self can occur by directing oneself to a group, separate individual or towards the void state of subjectivity within the individual which is universally constant. This projection away from an objective self inverts one state of the objective self into another.

The continual alternation of individual/group and separate individual group observes connectivity where the projection of one to another forms the other and a degree of reciprocation occurs causing a degree of unity.

****extend
Subjectivity is without form or function, objectivity is form and function. Under these terms both exist through eachother as eachother. That which is subjective/without limit cancels itself out into objective/limit, where a subjective state results in its objectification into an limit through an image, word, action, etc which is further objectifies when further the subjective states of people use it.

Objectivity, or a limit, which connects subjective states and gives form and function to them effectively exists through the subjective state as well considering all objective phenomenon exist through the subjective state and are inherently intertwined. The objective, that which has form, exists through the subjective, that which has no form, necessitating circularity and progression between the two.


The subjective and objective are inherently connected in these respects where Subjectivity as individualistic and Objectivity as group agreement give a firm foundation to the nature of boundaries. While argued that the individual gives the foundation for subjectivity and the group as objectivity, this nature of individual and group takes on a further role where the individual becomes a group and the group becomes an individual.

This can be further elaborated where the reflection of the subjective self through the subjective self gives it an objective nature which in effect is the self. The subjective nature directed towards the subjective nature effectively gives limit to the subjective self by canceling itself out under its own nature under objective limits. This objectivity, as existing through the subjective self, observes the self as multiple selves where the individual becomes a group of selves.

Inversely the group follows this same form and function and becomes a self in its own right as the multiple selves which become the group effectively exist as one self.






This leads to a variety of points which must be addressed:

1. If all phenomena are axioms then the phenomena has a subjective and objective nature.

2. This subjective and objective nature as phenomena exist as limits in themselves and hence the phenomena as a limit originates from a subjective objective nature. It also maintains a subjective and objective nature and defines one.

3.This original, maintaining and definitive nature of the axiom observes the axiom as having a degree of consciousness in itself considering it is three natures that give precedence to consciousness.


Under these terms, where all consciousness stems from and exists through directed movement as directed movement in itself, all phenomena have an inherent nature of consciousness to them as all phenomena are directed movement. Any understanding of consciousness, perceivably separate from the nature of directed movement as inherent definition is merely an approximation of such definition.

This is considering the definition of consciousness requires the same basic linear and circular nature in regards to definition and maintenance of it, and is a constant state of progress and circulation with this occurring through consciousness directing itself through itself. Any mere projective nature of consciousness away from consciousness is the consciousness existing through a continuous multiplicity.

While the definitions of consciousness, existing through a variety of languages and inherent wording, may not seem to reflect this nature of directed movement inherent with them the nature of the wording and argument itself follows this

So where the definition of consciousness may not be observed as having a common definition, and where what are perceived as common definitions exist solely through individual/groups as directed movements in themselves that continually individuate, what exists as the definition is determined as directed movements in themselves. This is inseparable from consciousness and effectively observes consciousness as self-maintaining.


The nature of the "axiom" as "self-evidence" observes a nature of unity and multiplicity in these regards.

What we understand of "Unity" and "Multiplicity" originates in directed movement where Unity observes an absolute consistency and multiplicity observing a form of non-absolute change.

What is Unified effectively exists as ordered, with order being conducive to structure and this structure being the symmetry of limits that are inherently replicated. This point may have to be observed further in the example of a triangle and the human form.

The triangle is composed of 3 points and 3 lines. These 3 points and 3 lines in turn observe 3 angles. What forms the triangle is its replication of the point, line and angle where these limits, through the replication observe an inherent constant structure. Symmetry can be observed as the foundation of structure with symmetry in itself being the replication of these limits.

The same can be observed under the human form where certain qualities such as the arms, hands, eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. (all composed of complex limits in themselves) are replicated in manner in which this symmetry as replication gives structure to the human form and function.

Now these limits exist as movements in themselves, which replicate to further movements so on and so forth.

This replication of the axiom effectively makes it both one and many at the same time in different respects.

1) The axiom continually progresses past its origins through the process of replication, with the axiom as a unity turning into a unit which exists through further units. The axiom exists if and only if it replicates itself through further axioms and from this replication projects away from itself.

In these respects the axiom continually individuates into further axioms and the axiom exists through a state of linear multiplicity.

A
A→ (A→A)B
A→(A→A)B→(A→A→A)C
A→(A→A)B→(A→A→A)C→(A→A→A→A)D

As projecting away from itself to form a new axiom, the axiom exists as a directed movement (or limit in itself where:

A→ (A→A)B
A→(A→A)B→(A→A→A)C
A→(A→A)B→(A→A→A)C→(A→A→A→A)D


2) The axiom continually circles upon itself through the process of replication. In this process of circularity the circulation of the axiom in turn forms a new axiom which exists as 1 in itself as unified. This would be synonymous to the axiom as 1 circular whole

A is directed passed itself towards B.
(A→B)

B, as A directed past itself towards an approximate axiom, is in turn directed back to A.
(A←B)

A and B as directed towards eachother in turn exist as Z.
(A⇄B)Z

This axiom of Z in turn is directed towards a further axiom as a new axiom.
(A⇄B)Z → (C⇄D)Y

(A⇄B)Z ← (C⇄D)Y

((A⇄B)Z ⇄ (C⇄D)Y)M

In these respects all axioms exist in a state circular unity.



This linear nature of the axiom results in a simultaneously state of circularity where the axiom directed away from its point of origin is directed back to its point of origin, much in the same manner a point is directed towards a point, hence the axiom maintains a dual role of unity and multiplicity. In these respects the axiom exists as a directive means.

(A→A)B


Hence each axiom exists as the progression of one axiom to another, with each axiom as a progression, in itself progressing.

(A→A→A)C

((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D

((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E


This set of progressions in turn progresses further, and so and so forth:

(A→A→A→A)D

((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F

((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C → (A→A→A→A)D)I

((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F


The continual progression of the axioms effectively leads to symmetrical axioms composed of different variables:

((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F

((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F


Which existing as symmetrical, but composed of different element, are actually progressive in the same form and function from the axiom they progressed from. Hence these axioms progress from one to another as progressive axioms in themselves.

(((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F → ((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F)L

However because of there symmetry, they dually progress towards eachother:

(((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F ← ((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F)L

Therefore a form of connection occurs where the axioms as symmetrical effectively are connected regardless of the linear progress:

((((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F ⇄ ((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F)L


This cycling occurs in the early phases of the axiom as well:

(A→A→A)C

((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D

((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E



(A→A→A)C
⇅
((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E
F = A12
⇅
((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D
D D



And this manifests as a continuum where the progression of any axiom to further axioms in itself is a progression:


(A→A→A)C
⇅
((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E
F

⇅ = A20

((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D

⇅ L

(D ⇄ D)H



In these respects the axiom as a circular whole is directed to other circular wholes:

A12 → A20

And maintains a progressive structure.
A12 → A20 → A(x)

While being a whole in itself.

(A12 ⇄ A20)B

⥁(A12,A20,A(x))Cx


The axiom maintains a dual state of circular holism and linear atomism. As a circular whole the axiom maintains itself and it constant while dissolving into further axioms through a linear means. As linear the axiom continually individuates into further axioms while being directed back to its origins as a constant unity.

The circular nature of the axiom as both maintaining and dissolving contains a symmetrical nature to the linear nature of the axiom as separation and connection.

1) This maintaining/connective nature of the axiom observes it as dually circular and linear as a Unified Whole

2) Simultaneously the dissolving/separating nature of the axiom as dually circular and linear as Multiple Atoms

3) The axiom as circular, projecting to further axioms as circular, observes it as dually circular and linear as Multiple Atoms

4) The axiom as projectively linear, while circulating through itself, observes it as dually circular and linear as Multiple Atoms

5) The axiom as circulating through further circles, observes is at circular as a "Unified Whole"

6) The axiom as inverting into further lines, observes it as linear as a "Unified Whole" (considering the line exists through the circle)


It is in these respects the axiom exists through a Unity/Unifying state and Unit/Individuating state simultaneously. This simultaneous state observes the axiom as a point of origin for both Unity and Multiplicity through Circularity and Linearism.

As both self-maintained unity and progressive unit(s) the axiom observes a dualistic nature where its inversion between the one and many is non-axiomatic as an absence of axiom; which is conducive qualitatively to nothingness and quantitative 0 being a foundation of inversion from which the axiom as nothing is in itself inversive of other axioms through a self negation.

The axiom as unity negates itself through the axiom as unit and the axiom as unit negates itself through the axiom as unity, where one inverts to the other as a relativistic positive or negative to the other when viewed as units. Or they exist as simple approximation of the other from a fixed unity. The axioms as a point of inversion, in the respect that the existence of one axiom is the non-existence of the other, observes the axiom as self-negating hence non-axiomatic at the same time in different respects. As inversive all axioms maintain a dual nature of randomness.

The axiom, as inversive, and through which consciousness is formless is equivalent to a 0d point.

Inversely...Continue




- Measurement as Projection of the Self

***This nature of observation, which can be deemed as synonymous to measurement, has an inherently projective extradimensional quality that connects and seperates the self.

The act of measurement, in respect to the application of certain limits to phenomenon which cause an inherent dual separation and connection to the phenomenon, takes on a projective or extradimensional role where the origin of the measurement is projected past its own origin.

This extradimensional nature of measurement, as the observer projected away from the observer, has a multidimensional nature.

a) The projection of the observer through the observer, in the act of applying measurement takes on a linear nature. The observer, in the act of measuring, because of the subjective self involved within the act of measuring effectively projects the subjective self through the act of measuring and in doing so not only forms the observer but the object being formed.

For example a man may be building a house. In building the house, the man always maintains a degree of ignorance due to his personal subjective state. The man may know some of the variables in building a house but effectively does not know all of them. There are variables within what he is aware of (whether it be personal knowledge in the skill of practical construction, the actual full structure of the house or even events in time that will affect both) that are obscure and cannot be observed. He may both be aware what is obscure to him and also be unaware of that fact certain variables are obscure to him. What remains however is the formless nature of his subjective state and the obscurity inherent within it.

This subjective state is projected away from itself through the observer and becomes objective. For example the man may cut a piece of wood to "x" dimensions without knowing all the variable involved (Ie future events, the measurement being right or wrong, etc.). Whether the actual measurement is right or wrong is inherently of no importance in respect to this example. The man makes a measurement through a subjective position and the measurement takes on an objective nature.

This objective nature in turn forms the man's subjective state where the cut would in turn forms the man's perspective on how he will apply the part to the house, cut other pieces of wood, etc. However while the reality becomes objective, it is a projection of a subjective state away from itself; hence contains a subjective element to it in regards its origin is from a subjective state. So While the axiom, what exists as self evident, is objective in the respect it has form and function, it exists through a subjective nature.




b) The application of the line through the observer in turn alternates where the observe exists through the line. There alternation of the line, observer, line, observer is linear in form and function reflecting point A.

For example a man draws a line in the sand. The line in the sand in turn forms the man's conception of the line. This line extends to further lines the observer applies which in turn forms the observer's conception of the line. The line forms the observer and the observer forms the line.

c) The observer is projected through the line and the line is projected through the observer where both are directed through the other as one. The self is connected and separated through the self under this linear nature.


The observer and line alternating through eachother observes the line/observer projecting in a linear direction through time. In simpler terms the line and the observer project in a linear manner and acts as a line in themselves, hence projected movement. This projection of the self through the self, through the line as having a dual subjective/objective nature, observes the self projecting away from the self in the course of measurement where the self becomes objective through the nature of the measurement.

This projection of the self through the measurement in turn is separate from the self prior to measurement. Take for example a person who measures out and forms a house. The house in turn forms the person in a variety of ways (emotional satisfaction, physical health, further knowledge of building, etc.) where the self projected from the house is separated from the self prior to the house. The self projects away from the self. This projection of the self away from the self observes a dual sense of connection with the self, in a separate respect, where the self projecting away from itself in effect becomes the self.

For example the man before building the house and the man after the house may not be the same person, but in building the house the man effectively gave structure to certain aspects of himself. In projecting away from the self he projected towards himself and these multiple selves become connected. ***elaborate.

Now the nature of the of the subjective/objective nature of individual/group which in turn are directed from one to another because of alternation are connected.

****address further
Address man and house as extensions
Common foundation of line observes universal consciousness
House contains degree of conscioussness.



Now the house may exist strictly as a line in time, but it's foundations are based upon the application of limits to structure which are composed of and exist through limits. For example the house is formed by applications of a line (application of length, width, height to materials) with the materials in turn composed of further lines (plank, drywall, insulation, etc.), with these phenomena composed of further lines (connection of one particle through another through vibration). The house exists as one linear limit existing through another, with all limit existing as directed movevment.

In a separate respect


- Measurement as Maintainance of the Self
***The nature of measurement has a dual nature of self-maintaining, where there is an inherent circular interdimensional quality within the observer that has a multidimensional nature.

a) The maintainance of the observe through the observe, in the act of applying measurement takes on a circular nature.

b) The application of the measurement, whether of a linear/circular and/or proxy nature founded in these limits, in turn forms the observer where both are maintained through the other.

c) The observe and the act of measurement circulate through eachother as one. The self is maintained and dissolved through this circulatory nature.


- One becomes.what they reflect on and relate to.

This aspect of the axiom, or self-evidence where the limits and the observer which exist through them as one and the same, observes its directional qualities determining its nature, which is reflected at a more common level under the phrase "you are what you reflect on" or "you are what you relate to".

This nature of the reflection where the individual/group effectively circulates is directed through itself as itself observes a form of self-maintainance where a form of repetition takes hold giving them structure.

For example an individual/group may reflect upon a political idea. This political idea which the group directs itself towards, in turn is directed through towards the group where both become one and the same as extensions of eachother. Reflection in these terms is a form of structure through repetition where axioms (whether it be the individual/group or political idea) maintain a form of consistency by the replication of certain qualities which make them constant. Reflection takes on a role of an absolute unchanging nature in these respects.

The role of relation takes on an extradimensional nature in these respects where one axioms is projected towards another in order to exist with this projection of one axiom being composed of further axioms.







- Science as Unscientific and Probabalistic
- Subjectivity and Objectivity (Subjectivity as chaos and Objectivity as order)

Actually time has points of inversion, which may be equated relatively to beginning and end points, but fundamentally are both as points of center.

This concept may appear confusing so I will elaborate.

What we under of Monday is only a beginning of a week when setting it as a premise for a work or religious cycle of time. The Monday as the beginning of one week is the end of a week for another. For example tomorrow's Monday is both the beginning of a week and end of another considering one beginning is quite literally the end for something else.

Monday exists as both beginning and end with beginning and end existing as opposing poles through a mediation of movements along a timeline (in this case the week). Monday is simultaneously both beginning and end with beginning and end being directional statements of relation. Under these terms Monday, is merely a point of inversion where a unified timeline (a week) is inverted into multiple timelines (weeks).


In these respects Monday is neither beginning or end, but rather a center point of change that divides timelines in repititve ratios where the reoccurring of every week occurs much like a repetitive frequency.

As a point of inversion, and using the linear nature of time as an example, the line as composed of infinite points is effectively composed of infinite lines.

A moment as multiple timelines within it and cannot be reduced strictly to zero, considering all moments in time are compose of relative movements. For example, I may remember s moment in time as relatively "still", but this "stillness" only takes into account a perceived absence of movement relative to another.

I may remember my hand being still because my hand was the fastest movement observed, an all movements relative to my hand slowed down. I may also remember a bee being still in the air because the rate of movement in its wings was so fast as to not be observed.

Everything may also be still in the room, but the light waves are so fast we assume no movement.

Hence with an increase in movement comes an increase in "stillness" as the moment, however that which sets the standard of speed forms its own time zone so to speak, where that which moves slower is a separate time zone.

A particle may have 3000 revolutions per second. B particle may have 1000 times that. A and B are defined by the movements of there parts. A and B are there own time zones considering the frequency of revolutions define them. However B may be used as the standard considering it having the highest rate of movement allows all other particles rates to fit inside its own rate. Hence particle B as a standard of time observes a potential unity of relations from which everything is judged.

In simpler terms a moment is composed of further moments and cannot be equated to point 0 as a moment is a timeline in itself.

1 divided by zero results in undefined as infinity.

3. Axioms exist as premises in the respect they are directives with the directive observing a dual nature of movement and stability which synthesize as limits in themselves considering both movement and stability extend from and exist through limit. The premise as directive, through its axiomatic nature as directive, necessitates the axiom is the limit of Reason as a directive; hence gives origin to both the premise, and the philosophy which stems from the premise, as axioms in themselves and therefore directive limits which give both structure and meaning to phenomena.

The axiom, or that which is self evident, observes all phenomena as premises to further phenomena in themselves considering all axioms are premises. As premises, the axiom exists as both intradimensional universals and extradimensional grades. This intradimensional nature necessitates that all premises as axioms are circular in nature. This dual extradimensional nature simultaneously necessitates all premises as axioms are also linear in nature.

The corresponding nature of progressive movement with the line and dissolution through circularity observes the extradimensional nature of gradation giving foundation to all axioms as a form of movement in itself.

The stability with the maintainance of the circle and the alternation of the line, observes the intradimensional nature of universality giving foundation to all axioms as a form of stability in itself.

The axiom as a premise, with the premise as directed movement, observe the axiom as directed movement and hence having a nature of limit in itself considering it is both movement and no movement.

The axiom as a limit is both linear extradimensional separation as progressive movement and linear intradimensional connection (as alternation) stability. The axiom exists through the line as the line, where self evidence arise from this limit. As seperative the line as progressive has a nature of gradation. As connective, through alternation, the line exists as a universal. The line simultaneously is both intradimensional and extradimensional as both universal and grade.

The axiom as a limit is both circular extradimensional dissolution as progressive movement and circular intradimensional maintainance as stability. The axiom exists as the circle through the circle, where self evidence arises from this limit.

This nature of the axiom as both the limits of the line and circle through their universal/gradient nature, with all phenomena being axiomatic, necessitates all phenomena as as composed of the limits of the line and circle. This point must be further elaborated on by cycling back and using the examples of the "materialist argument" and the "car".

The materialist argument maintains a dual linear and circular nature. In the argument the axiom of materialism is directed towards another axiom (atoms) which in turn is directed towards another axiom (electrons) and so on and so forth.

In this progressive linear state one axiom is separated from another. "Materialism" is separated from "atoms" which is separated from "electrons" where each axiom progresses from another.

However simultaneously the alternation of the axioms results in a connection. "Materialism" progresses towards "atoms" and "atoms" are directed back towards "Materialism" where both directed towards eachother shows a connection between "Materialism" and "atoms". This connection progresses with the increase in axioms where the formation of a new axiom causes a simultaneous connection at the same time in a different respect where each axiom inevitably takes a dual role of separation and connection.


The circularity of the materialist argument causes a form of maintainance and dissolution, where the linear alternation of the axioms of "materialism" and "atoms" exists as a form of circularity which maintains the axioms without an progressive growth as intradimensional. In simpler terms "materiality" is the "atom" and "the atom" is "materiality" where this perceived dualism necessitates a form of existence where they are directed through eachother as eachother.

Observing the separate "car frame" example it may be observed that a metal beam forms the frame and the frame forms the metal beam. The question of which "part" forms the other becomes irrelevant as one part is directed to another and a connection is maintained where this "direction" of one part to another is simply the movement of one part into another at a simple vibratory rate.

In a separate respect this circularity causes a form of dissolution through progress where "material" and "atom" dissolves into further definitions as "electrons, proton, neutron, etc." considering "material" and "atom" while self maintaining effectively dissolve as these definitions are connected to further defintions that must also cycle through. These definitions further cycle back to were "materiality", "atom", and (for examples sake) "electron" maintain eachother. This process of dissolution results in the nature of the definition effectively expanding/fractating itself into further definitions.

3. All Axioms are directives as Means of movement; hence all axioms are limits through unity and multiplicity.

The premise as the foundation for all reason in effect acts as a means where universality is intradimensional and grades are extradimensional; hence premises exist fundamentally as directives with the directive itself being self evident, as an axiom, considering direction in itself is the foundation of not just movement but any stability from which movement arises.

The nature of all being stems from a premise, or foundation, which gives structure not just to all forms and functions of reasoning but all phenomena as well. A philosophical school may base its foundation off of materiality, a religion from a specific percieved revelation, science from a specific methodology, a car from a frame, or a house from a specific layout. These are just a few examples.

These premises, or foundations as a proxy word, act as the means of existence for whatever phenomenon they are composing. The premise as intradimensional neccessitates a form of self direction, where it exists for what it is an an extension of a whole and as such is a universal in the respect it is constant and general.

For example: an argument based around the premise of "materialism" observes the premise as general and constant in these regards. This general nature of the premise observes it as maintained through the argument where the argument is directed towards the premise as an extension of the premise. The premise acts as self directed through the argument itself which exists as an extension of the premise, and the premise as universal exists fundamentally through the argument. The universal, as a general form, observes a form of unity where it is self directed.

Another example would be the frame of a car. To argue that a frame is intradimensional, or self directed, appears strange at first glance and this example may at first appear confusing. The car frame exists as the premise in the respect the car is a structure, hence rational in some regard or another as composed of ratios or proportions of parts. This car frame, as x,y,z materials, is self directed in the respect it exists as the premise for further parts (such as Windows, doors, engine, wheels, etc.). These parts exist as extensions of the framework where the parts as connected to the framework are directed towards the framework. All these parts as moving through the framework of the car, through their attachment, are inherently directed towards it in movement. The reverse applies, where the framework as connected, is moving through the parts, as connections of it, and effectively is moving through itself and is self directed by the extensions which compose it. The framework of the car in turn takes the form of a universal in the respect it exists as a generality that gives unity through its ever present nature.

This self maintained unity of the universal and it's general nature observes an inherent intradimensionality. All premises maintain a nature of universality in these respects.

Dually grades as parts observe a projective nature. The premise exists as a part which exists to another part so on and so forth. Using the "materialist" argument as an example again, is a grade of another universal, in this case "empirical sense", where this grade as a part inevitably projects away from its origins. "Materialism" as a premise, exists simultaneously as a part of another universal so to speak, where this premise in turn projects to further premises (materialism to atoms, to various types of atoms) and the premise acts as a grade or part of a universal. This "grade" observes a movement from unity to multiplicity through gradation.

The same from of gradation occurs for framework of the car as a "premise" to a rational structure. The universal from which the car frame exists, xyz material, observes the frame as a premise existing as a grade which is direct to further grades of the framework (beams to various grades of beams to various grades of an bolts/screws/etc. composing the beams) so on and so forth.

This gradation observes where the premise as a grade is directed to further premises as grades where this gradation observes extradimensionality as a progressive movment where one part moves through another.

Under these terms all premises exists dually as universals and grades, where grades compose universals and universals compose grades. Extradimensional movement, as grades/gradation, compose intradimensional movement as universals. Intradimensional movement, as universals, compose extradimensional movement as grades.

Another simpler example would be a color. Red, may be viewed as a universal in the respect it is composed of and exists through a myriad of infinite colors all directed through red as red. It may also be viewed as a grade in the respect it exists as a part of infinite other colors which exist as universals in themselves, where red as a grade of purple is directed away from purple towards various other colors as grades of red.

Under these terms the premise observes a dual nature of universals and grades where due to this dichotomy all phenomena can be viewed as premises. This directive nature of the premise gives it the foundation of being axiomatic where the premise exists for what it is as movement and it's directive qualities forming it for what it is. This self evident nature of the premise, as an axiom, is derived from this nature of the phenomenon being both a universal and grade through its respective movements.

This nature of progressive and maintained movement sets the premise, pardon the pun, for the axiom as existing accords to the nature of directed movement. The axiom, as self evidence, exists as directed movement where what is observed as true does so because it moves and is directed. What exists as directed movement does so because of its dual nature of universal/grade as both intradimensional and extradimensional movement.

- Nothingness cannot be observed on its own terms except relative to another form of being, hence nothingness is not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation. Because nothingness can only be observed through relation, and not on its own terms, there is no nothing but rather grades of "being" as Multiplicity of "being".

- Considering the premise the universe expands and contracts through a point, necessitates the universe acting through a repetitive frequency where it cannot be observed as being the only universe considering all expansion and contraction exists as part of nature and physics as a continuum.

- Actual infinity is possible through linear time, with the end of one time being the beginning of another, while being composed of infinite time zones in itself consider time is merely the relation of parts. All lines being composed of infinite lines is an example of this along with irrational numbers continually repeating a sequence.

- Finiteness is not logical on its own terms as no truth statement can be made without it inevitabling canceling itself. To say "there is no infinity" would necessitate the statement canceling itself out eventually leaving it as false and the existence of infinity as true or the statement would cancel itself out an be replaced with another statement ad-infinitum making a perpetual negative that in itself is infinite relative to a positive infinity.

- Where are you planning to publish exactly, out of curiosity?

Beginning and end are just points of relation stemming from a center point with all beginnings and end as center points in themselves. Entropy proves the end of one physical phenomena is the beginning of another, and beginning and end exist simultaneously.

No beginning or no end only gives premise to a constant center. An example would be a sphere, where any point on the circumference is a center point.

Limitlessness is continuity with continuity being the foundation of all limits. Using 1 as an example it may be observed that as a finite entity it must continually project through all other numbers if it is to exist as a constant. This continual projection of 1 ad-infinitum neccessitates infinity exists as 1.

Finiteness is merely multiple infinities.

That is actually a good question as to whether he discovered or invented it.

I would argue both at the same time in different respects.

He discovered it in the respect he observed the philosophical implications of dividing phenomenon into duals. In these respects there are certain qualitative problems with mathematics as the act of division results in a distortion of the previously unified phenomenon.

In a seperate respect he invented it by applying a dualism to a specific phenomena (the self). However considering this phenomena of the self, which applies to him as well, observes his argument as a creation of the self.

And the above is really just a cheap explanation.

The question really breaks down to the nature of creation/discovery and can be a whole thread in itself.

If there is no mind body problem, and they are effectively unified, the problem occurs as a result of any act of division where unity is distorted through measurement.

The problem occurs in the respect this distortion of the self (considering the mind body problem is an extension of the self) occurs through the self where the self instills a degree of separation or polarity within its nature by forming opposition.

This opposition of the self through the self as the self gives premise to an absence of structure as fundamentally being void. In simpler terms the question of the self, through the mind body dualism, is an expression of void as constituting the self.

Under these terms it is simultaneously problematic to expect a solution to the mind body problem considering this nature of "void" within the self that gives rise to the problem.

At most the mind/body dualism can be encapsulated through circular reasoning to maintain the problem considering the opposition of the mind and body are premised in void. A progressive linear approach to the problem will give an increase in definitive parts which form the mind and body, but this in itself leads to contradiction as the increase in definition leads to an increase in philosophical problems.

Effectively the mind body dualism necessitates a fracturing of the human condition, under standard logic geared towards the prevention of fallacies where the self that composes the problem is the very same self effectively being atomized so to speak.

The question of mind body dualism, under the terms of a dualistic approach, necessitates a form of atomism where the base limits of the self are reduced in many respects to continually dissolvable atoms of various definitions and sorts.

In a separate respect it reduces the mind and body effectively to point space considering the point is the only atomic definition that if continually divided maintains its same nature. Under this premise, we are left with basic geometric limits that composes the human condition of mind and body, with these foundations being the foundation of measurement, further implying that in this dualism the mind wins as all is mind and we cycle back to a form of unity under point space.

From a separate respect if the dualism is to continue with the prior premise of continual atomization where the mind and body are continually broken down to through further abstract and empirical definitions of what constitutes what, this progressive nature necessitates an element of time within the responses as all current answered become means to further answers and a continual probabilism occurs.

Under these terms this probabilistic nature to the mind body dualism, as evidenced by its continual dependence on time to redefine the answer, elevates the dualism to literally being a qualitative fraction where the abstract thought of the mind divides the potential unity of the empirical senses into relative parts and vice versa. This continual alternation of one as the premise which divides the other (considering the mind is some times determines to give definition to the body while the materialistic nature of the body gives rise to the mind) leaves an inherent cycling to the answer leading to the munchaussen dilemma considering the answers is literally one based in relativism.

Under these terms it can be argued that relativism is an extension of the very same "self" which addresses the problem of the "self". In these respects it may be argued that relativism, as a constant through this problem, is an inherent psychological law not limited to the realm of physics stemming from a problem of void within the psyche as void is where the "problem of problems" seems to arise as it gives foundation to opposition as absent of structure.

The mind/body dualism can be necessitated as an element of void within the psyche as an inherent element of continuous inversion. In these respects the self maintains an inversive element conducive to a problem of irrationality where a stable state of being effectively is divided and multiplied into further parts.

The mind body problem is strictly premised in the presocratic atomist schools where any perceivable unity would neccessitate a question of unity of the self and the environment around the self leading to a viewpoint similar to Parmenides.

The problem is structured according to how chooses to quantify the human condition, where this nature of quantity being inherent with the self and lending further questions to the nature of quantification and free will.

The mind body problem is inherent within the problem of measurement itself as it leads to an inherent opposition of elements.

Where the mind and body may be respectively viewed as having inherent thetical, or positive, and antithetical, negative, properties relative to eachother this dualism observes a necessary monism and triadic from which they extend.

This monadism stems from the fact the mind and body, while observed as separate, are inherently connected because of this separation. This may seem paradoxical at first, but considering the opposition of mind and body are dependent upon a movement between and through the other and inherent connection is formed. The mind, as existing, is defined through the absence of mind by the body. The body as existing is defined by the absence of body by the mind.

This interplay between the two necessitates a form of synthesis where the inherent tension between the two becomes a medial element that defines them. To argue a mind body dualism leads to a synthesis of spirit as a medial point from which both extend. The same occurs with mind/spirit resulting in body and spirit/body resulting in mind.

A third degree of the human constitution is always necessitated as a center of balance, where the spirit is this case acts as the synthetic element.

In a separate respect the interplay between the mind body dualism always results in a progressive definition of the two. The mind is x and is not y, relative to the measuring point of the body, and the definition continues. This applies dually with the body.


In these respects the mind body dualism causes an continual expansion of definition between the two while necessitating a dual point of origin from which they exist (spirit).

So the spirit exists dually as what the mind and body are not, while existing as both. As both it maintains a connection but as a negative of both it maintains its own positive degree of definition.

For example the body may be composed of organs, which the mind may be one, but the body is not the foundation of abstract thought which the mind is. However the mind as an extension of the body neccitates the body as responsible for abstract thought. So what we understand of the body as absent of thought necessitates the mind as the connector of this thought. The mind acts as a connector to the body and abstract thought.

Under these terms the mind as positive in thought, while the body is absent of thought except through the mind, observes the body as negative of thought except through the mind where the mind as positive in one thing observes the body as negative, hence observing the mind as a negative dimension.

This negative dimension observes the mind as a connector where the body is directed towards abstract thought and abstract thought is directed towards the body, with both existing through each other as each other and are inherently connected. This connection observes the mind as strictly a negative limit where is strictly exists as a connection between the two and not a thing in itself.

In a separate respect the mind may be composed of thought, with the body in itself being a thought of the mind, but the mind is not the foundation of empirical senses organs which the body is. However the body as an extension of the mind necessitates the mind as responsible for empirical organs. So what we understand of the mind as absent of empirical sense organs necessitates the body as a connector of these empirical organs and the mind. The body acts as a connector to the mind and the empirical sense organs.

So the body is positive in empirical sense organs, while the mind is absent of empirical sense organs except through the body. This observes the body as a negative limit which connects the mind and empirical senses organs. As a connector of the mind and empirical sense organs the body is not a thing in and of itself but rather and interplay of the mind and sense organs existing through each other as eachother.



This inherent connectimg of the three necessitates them acting as various grades of the other and a problem of definition ensues, while the continual interplay causes a self defining unity where one always acts as a mediator between the interplaying opposition of the other two.

Under these terms we can observe that body/mind/spirit exist through growth of one through the other.

So where

A. the mind as positive in abstract thought results in the body as negative in abstract thought through the mind, the body is positive in abstract thought through the mind.

B. And the body as positive in empirical sense organs results in the mind as negative in empirical sense organs, the mind is positive as a sense organ through the body.

C. The body is both abstract thought and mind, and the mind is both empirical sense organ and abstract thought. However the mind and body are nothing but connectors in themselves between facets of the other, hence as connectors are separate as absent of quality in themselves.



The question occurs as to what this negative dimension of connection between body and mind are, as a positive. This connective median would be spirit where the spirit is absent of both body and mind as it is a connector between the two while simultaneously being both.

Considering the mind manifests abstract throught and is the connector of the body and thought, the spirit is mind.

Considering the body manifests empirical senses and is the connector of the mind and empirical sense, the spirit is body.

So where the mind as negative connects body and abstract thought, and the body as negative connects the empirical sense organs and mind, the spirit is both body and mind through empirical sense and abstract thought as the connective median through both.

However considering the body manifests through empirical sense, and the mind manifests through abstract thought, the spirit manifests as neither.

So where empiral sense and abstract thought are separate, except through the manifestation of the spirit, this connection can be observed as intuition where intuition is the connection of empirical sense and abstract thought. In these respects intuition is a connector through the spirit where the spirit through intuition is a connector of the two.

So

A. the mind and body existing as spirit necessitates the spirit as being a positive existence of both.

B. the mind as existing through abstract thought and the body as existing through empirical sense necessitates the spirit as existing through intuition as a connection between abstract thought and empirical sense, hence negative.

C. The spirit as body and mind observes the spirit as positive in regards to being both, but negative in the respect it acts as a connector through intuition between abstract thought and empirical sense.

So while abstract thought may be connected to the body through the mind,

and the empirical senses are connected to the mind through the body,

the abstract thought and empirical senses are connected to body and mind through the spirit as intuition where intuition exists as the connector of the abstract thought and empirical senses. the body and mind are respectively absent of on there own terms.

Hence the spirit as both body and mind, is the absence of body and mind through intuition which connects abstract thought and empirical sense.

We therefore observe the body and mind as intuitively connected through the spirit as body and mind (heart, emotion)

while the body and thought as empirically connected through the mind as body (brain)

and the mind and empirical senses as abstractly connected through the body as mind (form).


These definitions continue to expand in a circular progression that is simultaneously self referential.

Hence the statement will eventually become untrue as it is finite.

Good point, but we are stuck with a paradox, considering the limits of language (which give rise to the point you are observing) are progressive in nature. One definition progress to another, and so on, with this continual progression leading to a further paradox of cycling.

All of this reflects the premise of the thread relative to "actual infinities".

Using the dictionary as an example: I look up x definition and it leads me to y. I look up y and in simultaneously leads me back to x while separately progressing to z. X is connected to z through y. And the process continues, through language, as potentially infinite considering the definition of language itself (through the dictionary) inevitably leads back to limit and limitless; necessitating that language is an extension of everything as everything can be summated under limit and limitlessness.

Now assuming you agree with the above, what we understand of "limit", "limitless" and "infinite" are funda,mentally connected.

What we understand of "limitless" is an absence of limit necessitating that limit exists as a negative exists relative to a positive. We can see this with potentiality fundamentally being a formless actuality, or absence of actuality.

All limit that exists must be continual, with this contuity fundamentally being an absence of change. The problem occurs in the respect that the limit effectively must change if it is to continue. We see this in the evolution or organisms and in their basic reproduction cycles. The problem is that this continual change, as absence of limit, is in itself a limit considering continual change is...well "continual". Hence the continuous that necessitates limit, is the continuous change of a limit as a limit in itself.

In these respects, limit exists through limitless with this limitless in one respect negating itself into a limit. In a separate respect this continual negation, resulting in limit, effectively results in the limit as limitlessness.

In these respects the limit exists through multiple limits as one (we can see this in the continuity of a species at a larger level, as multiple parts proprogating as one).

Looking at the nature "infinite" we can observe a negation of finiteness. This follows the same format of the limit. However what we understand of finiteness effectively is a part or locality which exists relative to another part or locality. This necessitates a multiplicity where a part as composed of and composing further parts is an "actuality" so to speak where the part is a continuity of the parts it is both composed of and composes. This actuality as locality exists as a limit in itself.

Now the actuality cannot move, hence exist, unless there is a potential localization or absence through which it can move. This may sound abstract so here is an example. An athlete cannot progress in his fitness unless he has the potential to increase. However this potential nature, is in fact a change from his actual nature in one respect while being formless in another. The athlete can only increase in fitness if he has the ability to change from one state of being fit to another. Infinite potential growth is infinite actual growth as change.

Under these terms all potentiality is an absence of form which negates itself into actual form. So continual finiteness, or parts/localities, is a unification of finiteness as continual. The continuity of finiteness is in itself infinite so to speak, where finiteness as infinite and multiple observes itself as multiple infinities through 1 infinity.

From here we see a continual circularity between finite and infinite which effectively acts as either a literal or abstract limit through the "circle". This circle as a limit to this alternation of "concepts", if not realities, must in itself become continual hence we cycle back to limitlessness.

Under these terms, and this "argument", limitlessness and limit are effectively one and the same where any difference as seperation merely being an approximation of unity.

Language, the source of the problem you are observing, is determined by a form of limitless multiplicity which any universal language, that continually, having to be built on symbols or words which are few in number (with the increase in word definitions comes an increase in complexity and confusion) and represent a large number of limits under them by effectively unifying them.

The problem of limitlessness, is a paradoxical limitless number of definitions for it.

.....hopefully the above makes sense.

In regards to the contradiction, you observe, of the 0d point having no length and yet the line is composed of infinite 0d points, I believe the contradiction is solvable.

The 0d point is void. Void cannot be observed except through "being", ie the 1d line in this case. Considering the premise of being, stems from a unity of 1 as everything (which does not contradict the atomist perspective considering only atoms exist) what we understand of void is an observation of opposition through separation.

Being and void represent the first dualism, or opposition as contradiction so to speak. Being exists as being. However void cannot be observed in itself, except through a multiplicity of being, where void effectively is reduced to nothing and not a thing in itself. This is considering multiplicity of being is still just 1 being. Void, or the 0d point, as nothing is strictly an inversion of unity of being through multiplicity.

The question of being leads to the question of composition, what exists universal through all being as being itself. Considering all being exists through structure, this foundation is limit, with the line being one of these limits (I will stop this point here to avoid lengthening the argument further.).

Void effectively cancels itself out through its own nature, as the inversion of inversion in one respect leaving the line and circle. In a separate respect this inversion of inversion maintains itself as a constant with this constant nature not only resulting in the line and circle being composed of multiple lines and circles, but fundamentally resulting in continuity.

This continuity sets the premise for direction where direction and unity are inseparable, considering the void of void results only in being with this being existing as 1. In these respects the line and circle become both observations of 1. The line sets the premise for 1 direction as a part of all directions, with these all directions existing as the circle and is conducive to 1.

Considering these infinite 1s exists as one with each other of these 1s being composed of infinite ones, what we observe is both one and many infinities with this dualism being solved under a triadic element of "limit" (considering geometry sets the foundation for quantity).

Finiteness is multiple infinities, with infinity being one. This cannot be proven or dispproven without using these same variables as part of the framework of proof, hence all proof lies in these limits.

What is the difference between being opposed to dogmatism and saying their is no dogma?

If they choose to place there beliefs only in appearance, then that which does not appear may also be true?

Actually "constant change is a limit and is a structure as this is one law" is not incoherent. If what we observe is change, and this change is constant through time, then change exists as a limit through the projective nature of time. Time is the limit, and one law, through which change occurs. Considering time is linear, at minimum, this boundary of change can be observed as linear.

Pyrhonism as "neither/nor" rather than "both/and" may be neutral, but it is a negative neutral where "both/and" would be positive neutral. I'm arguing, if you would have actually read the statement, pyrhonism is both right and wrong. Right when viewed as a relative part, wrong when viewed as self sustaining.

Pyrhonism as a system, which appears as dogma as appearance is subjective, opposes itself as it opposes dogma. Opposition is contadiction, with contradiction being deficiency through this opposition.



As to the last statement "it is contradictory when"

Being rational and self maintaining is not contradictory. It is contradictory when the system "solely" (as in the system alone, existing alone) is determined true when it's form and function are not comgru ent.


You have said a lot about pyrhonism, admitted to not being an expert, how do you no if you are right or wrong? I am working with the information provided here, along with Stanford,wiki, random sources. The premises are not self sustaining for the school, but does not necessitate it having no truth...just deficient in truth.

Agnositicism, except in appearance, does not give a complete foundation for truth as if it appears, then it must be true. Hence inevitably we are left to a premise of a universal "the all" and the "I am".

Okay...what is it I do not understand and what claims am I making that are unsupported?

If the logic does not work the logic does not work. The pyrhonist school has a dogma. The pyrhonist school claims there can be no dogma. Only appearance is truth. Appearance becomes is own constant law of change. Constant change is a limit and is a structure as this is One Law. Pyrhonism is not wrong, if viewed as a part of other systems of thought. It is only contradictory when viewed solely as self existing and rationally maintained by its own form and function.

We have evidence of this in geometry, much of which is premised in Platonic forms, Pythagorean Monad(s), Thales, the the presocratic atomist schools, Parmenides and Plotinus arguing of "The One" (which in effect exists as a law of limit), etc.

I am presenting nothing other than a Hegelian Synthesis of these schools. Constant change, as one appearance existing through another, in accorded with time, necessitates appearance existing as a necessary 1d Lineat Limit, at minimum.

This is a foundation for reason as it is a foundation of measurement; hence there can be a rational dogma which does not contradict any degree of truth considering this dogma, as a means of existence, is self sustaining and exists as the foundation of all appearance as definition while not being limited to appearance.

Its up to you, just observing the inverse position of pyrhonism consider the thread is about it. Best to look at both sides of the coin considering they do not "appear" at the same time.

What pyrhonism "is", "is not" and the "origin" of both.

This is a debate....and from a pyrhonnist perspective this argument appears therefore it exists. ALL the statement can be reverse to "I will not be a sounding board for your ideas". It works both ways.

I will summate may point in shorter terms:

The pyrrhonist premise of appearance necessitates forms of negation. The forms of negation give form and function to a stable and structured mind. As positively forming a sound mind, the negative qualities of pyrhonnist philosophy has a dual positive structure and exists as dogma.

System? I am assuming the Prime directives? You will have to elaborate before I answer and make a post longer than it needs to be.

The problem is that appearance takes on a form of evidence of existence where evidence is strictly just a structure of appearance...under the limits of continuity. One appearance is directed towards another and this directive quality gives existence to the appearance itself. In these respects all appearance, at minimum through time, is defined through the basic limits of the line and we are left with a foundation axiom and dogma of directed movement being the foundation of existence. This cannot be negated without effectively multiply this same limit into multiple one of the same structure.

ONE example is that while I may negate a phenomena as an appearance this still breaks it into further appearances. This progression continues and we are left with the question of what is appearance? The same negative qualities of separation, as in projecting one one phenomena away from another, require positive movment as limit in itself.

Under these terms we are left with the connection or separation of appearance, effectively being rooted in movement. The question occurs is appearance movment or vice versa. Either way a process of direction takes hold and we are stuck in the same cycle, but this cycle alomg with the projective linear nature of separation are universal forms.

And we are left with a reflection of platonic forms in one respect, while these limits exist as the change of heracltius. Change is form, with all form giving a prerequisite to a necessary dogma.

The problem of a strict suspension of judgement is it still necessitates a form of judgement as a process of negation in necessititated. This negatation requires a positive act of focus, for the most part, where a thesis is supplied to act as a negative.

This may sound contradictory at first glance, using a positive as a negative, but here is one example:

A cat keeps meowing, so I bring in a dog to chase the cat away. The dog keeps barking, so I feed it and pet it to keep it quiet.

In these examples a positive localized phenomena is brought into negate another positive localized phenemona...effectively to contain it. The cat is contained through the dog, the dog is contained through good behavior towards it. The problem, effectively as some perceived absence of order, is negated by providing some limit in which to contain it.

The same occurs for the munchaussen trillema, which is solvable, where it acts as a negative set of boundaries that form positive boundaries of "still psyche" by encapsulating or giving form to perceived chaos as an absence of order.

In these respects all movements have simultaneous positive and negative qualities and dogma is unavoidable. The question is rather less one of dogma or no dogma, but the most centered dogma which gives freedom through self structuring, in these respects we are left with basic reflection as the repitition of forms which give structure and direction to action.

It appears the best approach is a direct center approach, a middle path, of both dogma and no dogma where we perceive phenomena strictly for what they are limits.