lol...too true.

With that being said, the problem is that it is true....The foundational axioms of metaphysics are continually processing and changing. It is this progress, however that acts as the boundary from which metaphysics is formed as one axiom projects to another and then another, which the new axioms inevitably cyclicaling back to the old while expanding into further.

This directional nature of the axioms of metaphysics effectively form the nature of metaphysics as a process of being qua being, with "qua" as "which way" or "as" observing inherent seperative or connective qualities associated with direction.

This progressive amd self referential nature of metaphysics, if not all philosophy/religion/science for that matter, necessitates an inherent limit with the foundation of metaphysics as directed movement where this directive movment acts as the limit through which metaphysics exists.

This nature of metaphysics as limit through limit, axiomized in its inherent form and function, necessitates metaphysics as the study of limits itself.

Actually you can reference the "all axioms act as points of inversion; hence are non-axiomatic" thread in the first page of the metaphysics section... it would summarize a lot considering "axiom" (self evidence) and "appearance" can be observed as connected.

Actually that is the problem, what they may have said and what they appear to have said is relative to the observer as the observer still appears under a mantle of selfhood. This dualism between the perceived (As an appearance) and the appearance necessitates that appearance can invert or change eachother from one state to another; hence is void of structure and acts as a means of inversion.

The rest of the thread is long, so you can skip the rest and just focus on the above ststement.


Actually there is a contradiction.

Writing out a negation of dogma, in itself appears as a dogma if one is to look up the definition of dogma. The question of interpretation of appearance in itself is an appearance, hence what we understand of appearance is not just a reflective nature (where specific limits repeated resulting in a symmetry) but observes a relativistic disconnect from one appearance and another.

This disconnect, or void, is the premise of much appearance itself.

The nature of appearance cannot be limited to empiricism alone, but must also extend to reason and intuition considering the emliricists doctrine is not strictly interpreted by the 5 senses alone. In this manner appearance must be relegated to reason and intuition. This gives premise to all appearance, effectively occurring from point space or void.

Hence, as you observed the third dimension to appearance (relative to the dualism of contradiction resulting in a third form of the thing itself) is dependent upon a form of synthesis with this synthesis itself not entirely perceptible due to its possibilities nature.

In regards to a negative as relative gradation:

ALL positives observe a premise of existence as unity or unity (locality as a whole existing through other wholes). Considering there is no nothing, what we observe as absence is merely a relation of parts.

Color may be absent in this sentence, but as absent we localize color as a part which relates to further parts. So while this sentence my be deficient in yellow or green we under the absence of yellow and green as a negative boundary, we observe that the color of yellow and green are separate from this sentence and in doing so localize them into separate parts (ie the sentence and the colors green and yellow).

Hence as lacking in certain qualities the above sentence observes grades of quality (color, yellow, green) with a grade, or "gradation", being a form of atomization with the definition of "grade" being subject to its own nature as multiple definitions.

In regards to appearance as dogma. The pyrhonnist localize specific negative traits to reality leading to an axiom of appearance being the resting point of there philosophy. The problem is that these negative boundaries to appearance, still act as a dogma (or set of rule and regulations) in the respect they observe grades of appearance through negation.

For example, one may not be able to make a full judgement due to change, but this absence of judgement points to judgement as separate hence existing as a grade of appearance. The pyrhonnist have the appearance of dogma, but claim dogma is not possible or correct, hence appearance effectively is void in these respects as it is absent of limits or boundaries from which to give it structure.

If these are "my axioms" as I perceive them, and the pyrhonnist perspective is true, then the axioms exist and the pyrhonnist perspective is just a localized aspect of truth and cannot exist on its own terms except as a part of truth. I agree with the pyrhonnist argument, if it is viewed for what it is as a part of truth.

The infinite sets the premise for continuity in truth; no continuity, no truth.

Finiteness and infinity do not contradict.

Take the line for example.

***Ideally this would be best observed with pictoral examples, but words will suffice...I hope...

1. It observes a finite degree of one, where the line as infinitely projecting observes 1 as continuous.

2. The line as projective, cannot project unless there is somewhere for it to project too or from, hence the line must invert if it is to project anywhere. This inversion so to speaking observes the line going in an opposite direction from the beginning point. This is considering the point the line projects towards is the same point it is projecting from as all 0d points are the same.

3. This leads to two infinities considering the line is infinite. So now the line as multiple relative lines, through the inversion of 0d point space, is now finite yet stemming from the same infinite source. Finiteness is multiple infinities in these respects and now we have a premise for infinity to be quantified.

4. These two lines are simultaneously half of the original line. So with the inversion of the line, which for definition's sake I will call "folding", comes simultaneously quantitative expansion (multiplication) and contraction (division as fractals). This line as two lines, still however is one line considering the line is an infinite numbers of points between polar points. Hence, we can observe 3 lines in one.

5. These two lines, stemming from 3 points (one at each polarity and one in center), must continually project past there origins if they are to maintain themselves. However both lines are projecting from an origin of the center point, hence what we observe through the line is strictly the point as void existing through direction...This is considering a line is a point directed towards a point. So with that in mind the point must project towards itself, through the line.

In these respects the points at both ends are directed towards each other as these points are directed away from the center point, while towards each other as extensions of the center point. This is considering point exists through point. These end points directed towards each other effectively multiply the line, considering the line exists as one direction where quantity is specifically directional.

This forms the first angle, with this angle "condensing", as each end point is drawn towards the other. Infinite directions, are observed, or under the terms of the degree: 90 degrees (directions) are observed as 90 directions.

6. The angle as it condenses again form itself into a line, with the angle being 1 direction in itself. Under these respects the line exists as an infinitely condensing angle. In simpler terms the line exists as an angle and the angle exists as a line where one cannot exist without the other. The angle and line are duals so to speak.

7. The angles as a line must go in an opposite direction, considering the premise of the line existing is one off continually inverting directions. So the angle expands, forms into the original triadic line and contracts in the opposite direction.

8. Considering this occurs as a rate of infinity we can observe 4 directions at once (as 6 lines, vertices and horizon are 3 in 1.), through infinite grades of direction or 360 degrees, results in right/left and up/down. So now the line exists as a four directional structure as two dimensions.

9. This structure in turn must project away from its origins where the end points are directed towards each other and the center projects. This results in depth as the object goes forwards and backwards. From one angle this would appear as all lines contracting to a center point than expanding causing the object to seemingly disappear into a point and then expand from a point (or coming and going out of nothingness as it alternates between the dimensions of forwards and backwords).

This folding into "forwards" results in 4 lines as 5 with these four lines being a quarter of the original, hence the "folding function" observes 1/4 and 4 as simultaneous. This happen dually with backwords as well. So at this step we have 3 lines of horizon, vertice and depth where the line is reduced to one sixth.

The problem occurs, considering the line is the only standard of size, the lines are only relatively smaller compared to there prior localization and hence effectively are not shrinking or expanding on there own terms considering each line is infinite.

10. So with depth included we have 6 lines through 3 as 9. Now this is occurring at a rate of infinity with each "geometric object" quite literally being its own time zone. This process occurs further, and would need actual graphs at this point, until you reach infinity as a sphere with the sphere as infinite directions being conducive to 1 in itself.

11. The sphere, relativistivally, becomes a point, considering it must project in one direction and the cycle continues. Hence the point is relatively a sphere and the line is composed of infinite spheres as infinite ones and zeros.

12. Going from the points it may be observed that we have a number progression so to speak, where all numbers are actually infinities. All these steps are mere localization of infintity so too speaking; hence simultaneously proves through a folding process that there are possibility infinite ways to result in a number line.

I will stop here....

If the contradiction is nothing to them, and appearances are rooted in contradiction then appearances are nothing to them and the philosophy effectively is nothing.

On the other hand if contradiction, as opposition, is something then what they are observing is a connective quality between difference, effectively leading to the paramenidian conception of all is one. This necessitates a degree of change as to what appearance is considering oneness is viewed approximately through multiplicity and appearance is dependent upon a change in observation where observation at space time locality x is different than the one at space time locality y.

Observation of x and y would have to be observed and the question of appearance becomes one of the self.

On a separate note:

The negation of a positive, in this case dogma, necessitates a positive to be negated where negation is strictly a means of relative gradation hence appearance as dogma is rooted in an idolization of relativism if left unobserved.

I will stop here to keep the post short.

So if the practice of pyrhonism is rooted in contradiction, the pyrhonists practice contradiction as a form of opposition between opposing extremes (ie no dogma is dogma). In these respects, this opposition as a foundation of multiplicity through its dualistic nature, gives premise to the pyrhonnist philosophy as one of acceptance of appearance as change being acceptance of change itself.

Under these terms the pyrhonnist philosophy of acceptance of continual change through appearance, is in itself a constant and there is still a contradiction (oppostion). That is unless change and no change are accepted as connected, but if connected as one.

Do you see where I am heading?

The problem occurs as this appearance neccessitates dogma and in these respects the pyrhonnists contradict themselves.

I read both "Godel, Escher and Bach" along with "I Am a Strange Loop", by Hofstadter, and they are good reads.

This issue of looping is not just limited to Hofstadter alone as it stems not just through language but various civilizations and culture which give foundation to language. This directive capacity of culture forming language and language forming culture follows this same form and function looping-cycle-alternation where cultures and their intellectual foundations reflect:


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

This is further reflected in natural and artificial phenomena.

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

X. ALL triads, dualisms, and monads.

To cycle back to the premises:

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


The problem of any projective linear space follows the same..."form" considering a line projecting away from a point is directed towards a point. In a separate respect a point is directed towards a point through a line.

Even the line as an extradimensional structure, exists through a looping effect as a localization of it.

Brilliant in all truth, considering there emphasis on understanding the subjective human psychology effectively lead them to question the nature of what objective limit really "is".

ONE lesson I learned from eastern philosophy is that true objectivity leads to compassion and unity, for if one is to look as the divisive nature of cruelty it stems from a form of attachment with attachment causing change as an absence of order hence being its own problem.

This self reflective nature of all being effectively makes the truest form of cruelty being one of complete objectivity where cruelty is observe coldly and negates itself in a compassionate unity, with unity being the foundation of all structure, existence and even objectivity.

True objectivity leads to compassion as detachment.

Upon first glance, I am both personally and objectively sympathetic to pyrrhonist perspective as it gives premise to appearances or symbols as directing us to truth under a simple premise of existence "as is". In simpler terms existence is movement as appearance dictates this to us.

The problem occurs in the respect The pyrrhonist perspective and it's opposition towards any form of dogma is in itself a dogma with the base rules and triadic means to reach these rules (upon further reading) are also dogma as a framework of reasoning.

And yet their position of appearance paradoxically is also true as this statement itself is appearance. So it appears that all appearance is composed of, composes and is maintained through limits which give the foundation of appearance.

Interesting post...so effectively "The All" of what is perceived is evidence and should be taken at face value?

A line is an infinite quality as 1 direction with this infinite direction as 1 being composed of multiple line as 1 infinity in themselves.

Hence infinity, through the line as one considering one premised in empirical qualities observes all numbers as an observation of linear qualities through time as directive in nature.

The line as 1 is infinity as 1 with one itself being infinite in the respect it is continuous as existing through itself as itself. We can observe that a line as 1 through 0d space or void must effectively projects if it is to exist. However considering the line has nowhere to project but must project to something if it is to maintain its nature, the line must effectively fold through itself by multiplying in directions.

In these respects the 1 original line as infinite must individuals into multiple lines which each line being a ratio relative to each other and the original line while being infinite and one in itself. Finiteness is strictly the relation of infinities with infinity, as an absence of finiteness, being an absence of relation with infinity and finiteness existing at the same time in different respects due to there positive and negative qualities.

Not only is infinity quantifiable but there is one infinity and multiple infinities with these multiple infinities being the premise for finiteness or time.

In simpler terms the 1 directional nature of the infinite line shows infinity it only as quantifiable but effectively existing as a limit.

Philosophy fundamentally the death of one perspective and the formation of another.

The concept of death and philosophy is reminiscent of the "hanging man" concept observed not just in ancient or occult philosophy but reflected in various crucifixion/hanging stories in the world's religions (Christ, Odin, Quetzacoatl, Prometheius, Mithraism, etc.) where the individual is effectively suspended from reality in such a manner that the individual not only sees its totality and unity from a separate perspective, but the old individual (embodied under perspective) effectively dies in the process and a new individual is formed through a synthesis, so to speak, with "the all" and the divine mind "I am".

Death, effectively as nothingness, is a point of inversion where one degree of life effectively as a linear progression in itself through time as a measurement of the Divine Mind (which is premised as measurement through the application of limits premised in the point, line and circle) folds into another form.

We can observe that all spiritually is linked to fundamentally directive qualities in the basic "down to up" paradigm often associated with "transcending, rising above, ascension, etc" or the basic "up to down" associated with "The fall, descent, etc.) where the basic tenets of these spiritual qualities are premised in a form of movement as a limit in itself.

This movement of the spirit, or emotion and intuition, can be further observed at the base practical level under a swing of emotion where one emotion is effectively directed from one to another and is observed not just as moving but a mover in itself as it is encapsulated further under thought or physical action which in turn directs back to an emotion of some form or function.

This capacity of spirituality, as a degree of movement relative to other boundaries of movement as though/mind or body/action, reflects a form of limit in itself and gives not just a defining property to the human condition but is a mean through which further emotions, thoughts or actions exist.

Now this change, as a form of unity to another unity as multiplicity through locality, observe a metaphorical or even literal point of inversion which is conducive effectively to 0 dimensionality or void where a unified structure inverts through non-being into further being with this "being" effectively connected to itself through its quality.

We can see this aspect of death as inversion giving premise to heaven, hell, purgatory/reincarnation and even the void of atheism as merely dimensions in themselves where the consciousness, through life, as a directed movement effectively changes.

With the concept of

1) Heaven it can be observed as a fuller awareness not limited to time or any direction except all direction as a form of unity. This can be elaborated on as a 1d point of light, observed in near death experiemces.

2) Hell can be observed as a form of continual inversion as a degree of change where nothing is constant and gives premise to a qualitative burning as a form of chaos which effectively projects strictly to void itself where the divine image, as a measuring capacity, effectively consexperiences. This can be elaborated on as a 0d point of nothingness giving premise to high degree of relativistic change as fire or the bottomless pit as void. "Nothing" after death can be viewed as synonymous.

3) Purgatory/Reincarnation can be viewed as a form of cycling through linear time where the individual is maintained in a neutral position between unity and void and effectively continually cycles. A lower degree of reincarnation can be observed in reproduction as a cycling of qualities. The transitional aspects of personality as going from one person to another can be observed as a form of cycling or repetitive thought/emotion.

In simpler spatial terms

1. Heaven can be observed as a self directed unity premised in a 1d point self-directed and self maintain as pure limit through no limit as absolute.

2. Hell can be observed as nothing, void or absence of structure through the 0d point, which is the foundation of relativity.

3. Purgatory/Reincarnation can be observed as a continual linear progression through time as time, with the alternation of the "I", through multiple forms embodying a cycling of qualities, as a dual form of circularity.

In these respects, from a perspective of limit as the foundation of being, death effectively is nothingness encapsulated through reason.

Yes, I argue the same point, however I will have to look it up in my notes-forums so I can copy and paste the argument because it leads to a contradiction inherent within the law of excluded middle and several other issues, such as the fallacy of equivocation being inherent within the law.
I also provide a new argument as to what the law of identity should be..

But until then, yes you are correct.

I agree with all the above.

Median, is strictly a center limit from which all "being" exists.

One may observe two extremes, lets say emotion for the sake of simplicity.

Joy and Despair effectively are relativistic duals of the other.

Joy, as an emotion, may be directed towards despair and despair may be directed towards joy. We observe these emotions effectively directed, one towards the other, due to the inherent movement within them as a form of change. This direction of one towards the other effectively acts as a boundary in itself where the median, as what exists between two extremes, effectively exists as a limit with this limit existing as directed movement.

Now, where we may observe this relativistic aspect of one extreme being projected towards the other under a 1 directional limit, which is linear in the respect it is synonymous to time as the form of change considering the directed of one emotion to another exists through time, when viewing both extremes directed towards eachother simultanously it may be observed they are inherently connected through the limit itself which is interdimensional (ie a means of simultaneously projection both ways).

As connected, these extremes effectively as "one", observe this meaning as an approximation of unity where this boundary acts as a negative dimension which seperates "the one" into two extremes of joy and despair with this "one" effectively existing through itself as itself as evidence by these extremes directing themselves towards themselves through the opposite.

In these respects meaning acts as a unifier and seperator where meaning itself is a limit of both a postitive and negative nature. One of unity and one of seperation where meaning effectively is "limit" in itself reflective of a geometric origin in both form and function.

Major issues with time constraints but the 13 prime directives I am arguing (along with points 1 and 6 which I am currently defining, hopefully clearly, and the eventual explanation of the other points) give a base foundation.

The ancient philosophers argue that God, and this point will mirror the individual constitition as an image of God under certain premises, is a sphere or set of limits which effectively in prisons chaos through pure order. Other philosophers, including modern ones such as Hall in his observation of ancient religions, observes God as being a trinity of the point, line and circle where this triad exists as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

In simpler terms the human ability to reason effectively gives direction to movements, through axioms which provide focal point of awareness as centers of origin in measurement, with these movements effectively giving boundaries that structure both the subjective and objective reality of the individual while simultaneously the environment through which the individual exists.

This structuring process, as directing intellectual, emotional and physical movements further extends at the group level as well and a form of reciprocation occurs in which the individual and group as existing through a series of movements as limits in themselves gives further precendence to li it being the foundation of mind.

This can be observed in a simple example of a man measuring materials for a house, with these materials representing various degrees of movement or "flux", which in turn forms the house. The house, as built, in turn forms the man and effectively changes him (provides relative stability which changes he emotional status and perception). This change in the man in turn is directed back towards the house and a form of reciprocation between the man and the house occurs where they exist as extensions of each other.

So the basic limits the man applies to forming the house, points, lines and circles, in turn form the man's consciousness. Consciousness as forming and existing through the basic point, line, circle limits as axioms in turn shows these limits as forming the consciousness with this connection observing consciousness exists through limit as a form of directive capacity.

The question occurs, considering under these premises consciousness extends from these axioms and consciousness is self aware, as to the degree in not just which the universe is conscious but also how the line point and circle (as "the all" through "the all" as "the all") manifests through various phenomena such as empirical sensory reality, language or even psychology as well considering all phenomena as existing as structures are composed of limits with all limits premised in the point, line and circle.

If all language is meaningful, and all reality is composed of medians in the respect structure exists as an extension of a center, is language connected to reality as both exist through a point of center? Can language and reality be viewed as one and the same, because of this, leading to a premise of one does not necessarily presuppose the other?

Will give better argument when have time:

But effectively limit and no limit, through the point, line and circle as foundations of both empirical and abstract reality as effectively all phenomena through all phenomena.

We observe reality through limits with these limits forming our observations with this reciprocation being a limit in itself. In these respects, observation or mind and limit-no limit are one in the same.

If meaning is prior to language and you are using language as a means to giving direction to this premise, how is language not meaningful?

And what is language but a form of meaning through use, to loosely reference Wittgenstein, considering it is the use of language which gives meaning to life as it effectively exists as a limit through which we not just structure our own perceptions and those of the group, but effectively structure the environment through which the individual or group exists?

This transcendental aspect of language effectively unites and gives structure, which in itself is positive through the boundaries it gives, or is divisive and causes seperaration, which in itself is negative through the absence of boundaries it necessitates.

This positive and negative aspect of language, as both unifying and seperative in nature, reflects the neutral qualities of language as a limit of not just the human condition but an universal element of definition which gives premise to existence itself. Language as neutral, is language as a median of being which gives directive properties to, through, and from the observer which inherently self directs to language as a form of movement itself, with movement being the foundation of all being.

The definitive properties of language in itself observes language as not just universal to all elements of being regardless of there state or degree of comsciousness, but effectively presents itself as a median in itself. This property of "meaning" within language in turn extends to all of aspects of meaning necessitating a degree of oneness with them.

Yes, mind exists through limit as a limit in itself. Limit gives structure effectively encapsulating chaos.

Will do. I will start with point 6, as I was discussing this elsewhere on a seperate forum, and recycle to point 1 eventually considering my time constraints.

The 13 Prime Directives is really dense and is a summation of basic universal laws that exist through both empirical and abstract phenomenon and can be argued as interwoven as 1 law in itself.

One possible perspective, one can either agree upon or argue against, is observing the one sentence version of the law and its existence through the other 1 sentence versions of the laws...it may be a simpler approach.

All cause exists through effect with effect being an approximation of the original cause under a perceived separation through the multiplicity of it.

Further more all effect is a cause in itself, and what can be observed is that the cause exist fundamentally through the effect.

Under these terms we observe cause and effect fundamentally as the mirroring of structure equivalent to a form of replication of limits which occurs as a form of symmetry (or similarity conducive to a binding median) where the cause/effect linear chain (which can be dually observed in circular terms, with this dual circular and linear nature observing all causality existing through a form of self-reflection where any perceived multiplicity is merely an inversion of unity into multiplicity through 0 dimensionality.

This infinite replication of limit effectively observes all cause as non-movement as infinite change is non-movement itself. All change is the observation of multiplicity where the observation of cause is effectively the observation of a self-reflective structure considering what "was" is determined effectively by what it "will be" and the future inevitably determines the past as an extension of the past through itself.

What is change, as one structure relative to another, effectively is an observation of multiplicity where one reality effectively exists as a part of and composed of other parts which observe change as a boundary of movements giving premise to proportionality or the "ratio" as change through relation itself.

This change of part through part, observed mathematically through the fraction as both an observation of division and multiplication through "times" as a means of localizing a reality into parts, effectively is an observation of inversion of unity into multiplicity where all 0d dimensionality, or absence of structure, acts as a focal point of inversion and is not a thing in itself.