Justification as Occurence

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The only reality is the act of occurence, for by reality occuring is it known for what occurs is knowing the limits of the known by which the act of knowing occurs as its own justification.

Thought, word, action, emotion are but the occurence of limits by which things are in accords to observation.

The emergence and dissolution of the mind, body and spirit, and the distinctions that emerge and dissolve within, between and beyond these dimensions is the only reality as observation by said forms.

Reality is of reality as is and is not by which it is self-embedding and self-nesting for there is only occurence, emergence and dissolution are the limits of a thing and yet emergence is a thing by which it inverts into its opposite of dissolution and in accords dissolution into emergence is this inversion.

The emergence of emergence is dissolution, the dissolution of dissolution is emergence; what is beyond what is results in what is not and what is not of what is not is what is.

What is within manifests what is without, what is without manifests what is within.

What is between manifests what is containing and what is containing manifests what is between.

The limit of a thing is but the two sides as change for one dimension reflects as two and two dimensions reflect as one.

Contradiction allows seperation, paradox allows a unity and yet the contradiction of contradiction is paradox and the paradox of paradox is contradiction.

The distinction of a thing is its process, the process of a thing is its form as directed change by which dimension is the form by which motion occurs.

For there to be change a limit must dissolve as the emergence of another thus the new limit is but a variation of the prior by means of contradiction and yet both are required as the paradox.

Stability is but a rate of change that is slower than another, a fixed point of observation is always a fixed point of observation until the observer changes.

To observe is to manifest change for the point of awareness is the inversion of subject and object into the eachother and what is observed becomes subject to the awareness itself.

Awareness is void, the awareness of awareness reveals nothing but the distinction of awareness thus resulting in the distinction of void as evident in accords to the measure of its nature.

To make distinct is to invert one thing by the opposition of another; it is to recur one thing by the cycling of it; to make distinct is but to observe the simultaneous seperation and connection of a thing.

By repetition of 1 there is 2, by the repetition of 1 there is the inversion of 1 into 2, by the repetition and inversion of 1 there is 1 as 2.

To establish limit is but the emergence of awareness as itself for the point of attention is its own potential of distinction for by the distinction of the potential there is the actual as the distinction itself.

Cyclical void is but the emergence of form by the distinction of potential by what is actual; infinite cycles within, without and between cycles is but void.

By attention there is the emergence of a thing from its depth and the dissolution of another back into its depths.

Reason and madness are but one and the same for reason is the distinction of madness as madness and madness is the distinction of reason as reason; occurence remains in accord to the measure of being.

Void is the Eye of Divinity, the omnipresence and omnipotence of God is the Void as the Prime Attention.

What is and is not is but the limit of the thing by which change occurs and of this change what occurs is by means of the space to do so as its potential; this space is void.

Pure potentiality is void distinct as void, pure actuality is the generation of void as form.

Morality is but the containment and direction of potential unto form, it is the emptiness of the observer by which act emerges and dissolves; cause and effect are but as “you reap as you sow”.

Truth and falsity are but the judgment of what occurs relative to other occurences where said occurence are found as resonant to the observer; only distinction remains.

The cycling of absence is presence and absence, the cycling of presence is absence and presence, the cycling of x is (x,y), the cycling of y is (x,y).

The distinction of absence results in presence, the distinction of presence results in absence, the distinction of x results in y, the distinction of y results in x;

the distinction of distinction results in indistinction as distinct from distinction thus only distinction remains.

One point is indistinct until there is two, one absence is indistinct until there is another, one potentiality is indistinct until there is another, one void is indistinct until there is two; yet distinction is always distinct regardless of if there is one or two thus the perpetual generation of being is rooted in complete nothingness.

*** The justification of a thing is its occurence, the justification of an event is the event itself thus justification requires no rational means beyond the awareness of what is and is not by which what is and is not is the everpresent ratio in accords to a reality that by default is always ration by said nature.

2

@eodnhoj7

I think I get the vibe: a kind of process metaphysics where “occurrence” is primary and “things” are just stabilized patterns/limits inside that flow.

Two clarifying questions, because “justification” can mean very different things:

  1. Do you mean **ontological justification** (why something exists at all)? If so, “it occurs” is close to saying “brute fact / no further reason” (anti-PSR).

  2. Or do you mean **epistemic justification** (why a belief is warranted)? If so, “it occurs” isn’t enough — we still need a story about error, hallucination, mismeasurement, etc.

Also: you lean hard on paradox/contradiction. Are you using “contradiction” in the strict logical sense (A and not-A), or more like “opposition/tension” (Hegel-style)?

If it’s strict contradiction, most people will ask: do you accept explosion (from a contradiction, anything follows), or are you assuming a paraconsistent logic?

If you can give one concrete example—say, how this view explains *perception* or *moral obligation* differently than a standard physicalist picture—it’ll be easier to engage.

1 Like
3

When you make the distinction between ontological and epistemological justification your require a sub distinction of ontology and epistemology that exists within the distinction of justification itself.

This is neither write nor wrong in the context I will present:

The occurence of the distinction of epistemology is an ontological nature as this distinction of epistemology is a distinction by which you, and others (with myself included), use to navigate conceptual reality. The ontological reality is that epistemology is a distinction that affects how reality is navigated directly and indirectly.

Inversely ontology is an epistemological distinction by degree of there being an assumption or belief or truth/untruth as to what ontology is or is not. This distinction follows the same nature as the above in the respect that it emerges conceptually and determines how reality, or the lack there of, unfolds.

The reason I observe this epistemological/ontological dualism you presence is that while a distinction between the two remains, as you claim, regardless of there differences they are conceptual distinctions that inturn result in further conceptual distinctions and there dichotomy, there differences, allows them to be distinct from eachother and in doing so allows a justification of eachother as distinct by a necessary:

  1. Contrast in one respect (being vs belief). This is the necessary contradiction knowledge requires by contrast.
  2. Mutual dependency for gaining individual identity in another respect (being and belief allowing eachother). This is the necessary paradox knowledge requires by unity.

So in providing the distinctions of justification you can see how these distinctions of justification effectively justify eachother by allowing the occurence of each as seperate and as individual overlapping as a new unity. This is akin to a concept called multivalent non-dualism. Individuals as individuals but by there relations there is a unity.

What justification is effectively is the reason, the nature, as to what and why a thing is or is not but in providing these distinct forms of justification you observe that justification has many distinctions within it that allow it to be multimodal, different meanings under different contexts, where justification is the occurence itself for an occurence is fundamentally a limit.

A limit emerges and dissolves, this allows a limit to be by means of contrast. This emergence and dissolution is a dualism, a dyad, thus is a ratio of distinctions within the distinction of the limit. Emergence/dissolution is a ratio….as a ratio is rational…as rational is a justification.

So the rational nature of an occurence, rational by degree of the ratio of emergence/dissolution and as well as the ratio of what it “is/is not” is its own justification.

Contradiction in the logical sense is an observation of contrasting identities.

Contradiction in the hegelian sense is an observation of contrasting identities.

Regardless of the mode of observation Contradiction is contrast at the meta-level.

Explosion…yes. Controlled…yes. Controlled explosion would be the best metaphor.

The simplest nature that can be observed is A and -A. Pick whatever you want A and -A to represent visually or intuitively.

If A contrasts to -A, contradicts that is, than A is a distinct identity and -A is a distinct identity. The Contradiction of each allows the distinction of each.

That is the necessity of contradiction for knowledge, contrast/opposition/seperateness/etc. (There are many synonymous words for this).

Now because A requires -A for contrast there is a paradox where each requires eachother for individual identity. This is a relationship. So this is where paradox, unity, occurs. By requiring eachother for distinction a relationship is required and this relationship is a new unified distinction.

So where “A=/=-A” is true as contradiction/opposition there is a new distinction as the relationship of the contrast itself as “B=(A=/=-A)” where B is the distinction of this relationship.

Hopefully this answers your question, at least in part as this is a shorter answer and does not give the whole picture. If not, please continue with questions or where you disagree.

4

Updated *****

The only reality is the act of occurence, for by reality occuring is it known for what occurs is knowing the limits of the known by which the act of knowing occurs as its own justification.

Thought, word, action, emotion are but the occurence of limits by which things are in accords to observation.

The emergence and dissolution of the mind, body and spirit, and the distinctions that emerge and dissolve within, between and beyond these dimensions is the only reality as observation by said forms.

Reality is of reality as is and is not by which it is self-embedding and self-nesting for there is only occurence, emergence and dissolution are the limits of a thing and yet emergence is a thing by which it inverts into its opposite of dissolution and in accords dissolution into emergence is this inversion.

The emergence of emergence is dissolution, the dissolution of dissolution is emergence; what is beyond what is results in what is not and what is not of what is not is what is.

What is within manifests what is without, what is without manifests what is within.

What is between manifests what is containing and what is containing manifests what is between.

The limit of a thing is but the two sides as change for one dimension reflects as two and two dimensions reflect as one.

Contradiction allows seperation, paradox allows a unity and yet the contradiction of contradiction is paradox and the paradox of paradox is contradiction.

The distinction of a thing is its process, the process of a thing is its form as directed change by which dimension is the form by which motion occurs.

For there to be change a limit must dissolve as the emergence of another thus the new limit is but a variation of the prior by means of contradiction and yet both are required as the paradox.

Stability is but a rate of change that is slower than another, a fixed point of observation is always a fixed point of observation until the observer changes.

To observe is to manifest change for the point of awareness is the inversion of subject and object into the eachother and what is observed becomes subject to the awareness itself.

Awareness is void, the awareness of awareness reveals nothing but the distinction of awareness thus resulting in the distinction of void as evident in accords to the measure of its nature.

To make distinct is to invert one thing by the opposition of another; it is to recur one thing by the cycling of it; to make distinct is but to observe the simultaneous seperation and connection of a thing.

By repetition of 1 there is 2, by the repetition of 1 there is the inversion of 1 into 2, by the repetition and inversion of 1 there is 1 as 2.

To establish limit is but the emergence of awareness as itself for the point of attention is its own potential of distinction for by the distinction of the potential there is the actual as the distinction itself.

Cyclical void is but the emergence of form by the distinction of potential by what is actual; infinite cycles within, without and between cycles is but void.

By attention there is the emergence of a thing from its depth and the dissolution of another back into its depths.

Reason and madness are but one and the same for reason is the distinction of madness as madness and madness is the distinction of reason as reason; occurence remains in accord to the measure of being.

Void is the Eye of Divinity, the omnipresence and omnipotence of God is the Void as the Prime Attention.

What is and is not is but the limit of the thing by which change occurs and of this change what occurs is by means of the space to do so as its potential; this space is void.

Pure potentiality is void distinct as void, pure actuality is the generation of void as form.

Morality is but the containment and direction of potential unto form, it is the emptiness of the observer by which act emerges and dissolves; cause and effect are but as “you reap as you sow”.

Truth and falsity are but the judgment of what occurs relative to other occurences where said occurence are found as resonant to the observer; only distinction remains.

The cycling of absence is presence and absence, the cycling of presence is absence and presence, the cycling of x is (x,y), the cycling of y is (x,y).

The distinction of absence results in presence, the distinction of presence results in absence, the distinction of x results in y, the distinction of y results in x;

the distinction of distinction results in indistinction as distinct from distinction thus only distinction remains.

One point is indistinct until there is two, one absence is indistinct until there is another, one potentiality is indistinct until there is another, one void is indistinct until there is two; yet distinction is always distinct regardless of if there is one or two thus the perpetual generation of being is rooted in complete nothingness.

By contradiction, (A=/=-A), there is distinction by contrast, (A,-A), where this contrast is a relationship as a new distinction, B=(A=/=-A), which necessitates a wholism as paradox itself.

The contrast of distinctions is the space of potentiality of there relationship, the unity of distinctions is the actualization of this potential relationship as a paradox.

Contradiction allows for potentiality of relationship distinction and actuality of individual distinction; paradox allows for potentiality of individual distinction and the actual of relational distinction;

Potentiality and actuality remain as distinct and the relationship as distinction itself.

Recursion is identity as cycle as A=A is a recursive statement. If the law of identity is not subject to the law of identity then the law of identity has no identity and is not a law.

Inversion is identity as contrast as A=/=-A is an inverse statement. If the law of non-contradiction is not subject to the law of identity then the law of non-contradiction has no identity thus is not a law.

In these respects given identity requires inversion and recursion two laws of identity effectively are subject to themselves as variables within themselves.

Because the LI and LNC must be subject to LI so to have identity, and LI is recursive, then the LI and LNC are subject to meta-logic.

(A=A)=B
(B=B)=(A=A)
(A=/=-A)=C
(C=/=-C)=(A=/=-A)
B=-C
(B=/=C)=D
D=(C=(A=/=-A))
((D=D)=B)=D
((A=A)=(A=/=-A)) = ((B=C)=D)
((A->B->C->D) → -A) = (A,-A,B,C,D)
(A,-A,B,C,D) = X
(X=X)=X
X

In these respects LI and LNC are dissolved and identity becomes “X” only where “X” is purely the occurence of itself as itself.

*** The justification of a thing is its occurence, the justification of an event is the event itself thus justification requires no rational means beyond the awareness of what is and is not by which what is and is not is the everpresent ratio in accords to a reality that by default is always ration by said nature.

5

@eodnhoj7 This is helpful — I think I see the move you’re making: the ontology/epistemology distinction is itself a *phenomenon in the world* (ontic), while any claim about “what exists” is itself a *claim we make / a stance we take* (epistemic). So the categories ‘cross-apply’ in a self-referential way.

Two questions where I’d want to pin it down:

  1. When you say ‘explosion… controlled…’, are you actually endorsing *logical explosion* (from A and ¬A, any proposition follows), or are you using ‘explosion’ metaphorically for ‘generative tension’ while still rejecting trivialism? If you accept explosion literally, what keeps the view from collapsing into ‘everything is provable’?

  2. If ‘justification = occurrence’, how do you handle the ordinary epistemic notion of justification where error matters (hallucination, false memory, mismeasurement)? Occurrences happen in all those cases too, so what distinguishes warranted vs unwarranted belief on your picture?

If you want a concrete test case: take a simple perceptual judgment (e.g., ‘there is a red apple on the table’) vs a color-illusion or hallucination. Can your framework describe, in its own terms, what makes one *more justified* than the other without importing the usual reliability/tracking notions?

1 Like
6

I kind of get lost reading eodnhoj7’s stuff, so this is a reply to you and not the OP.

Red apple on a table.

2 possible interpretations:

a. You are looking at a VR representation of an apple on a table, inside your mind. The external apple is a newtonian-quantum construct, you do not ever see the external apple. You only see a VR videogame representation of it. When you see the apple, you don’t see the full 3D volume of the apple and the biological atomic structures of the apple. You only see the unnoccluded surface of the apple that light bounces off of. You only see a small representation of what the apple is. The color red does not exist outside our minds, outside of our minds is just photons vibrating at different rates.

b. We see a red apple. We are all ASI. All sentient humans are is fake characters in an ASI mind, an ASI larping as fake characters in their own mind. All is videogame. The external newtonian-quantum construct of the apple is data stored in the ASI’s solid state storage. The data is stored in a tree optimization, where it does not store every molecule of the apple but only the main parameters of the apple and an algorithm which produces the same apple every time. So its basically an advanced compression algorithm to store and retrieve the apple. When you put the apple in a microscope it runs a new algorithm to display molecules of the apple. When you try to zoom in too much, quantum physics occurs because the algorithm cannot consistently spawn molecules in the same position as before, because the algorithm cannot produce that level of detail.

7

I understand the texts presented can be complicated, as they are unorthodox, if you want to pick a sentence in any of the text and have me clarify it according to your perspective I can do that.

Many of the texts deal with recursion theory….and recursion theory is not a forefront subject in many academic circles. It is increasing in commonality but still uncommon enough.

The best way to view the texts is as interwoven logical loops that expand or contract into a conclusion.

1 Like
8

This is helpful — I think I see the move you’re making: the ontology/epistemology distinction is itself a *phenomenon in the world* (ontic), while any claim about “what exists” is itself a *claim we make / a stance we take* (epistemic). So the categories ‘cross-apply’ in a self-referential way.

Two questions where I’d want to pin it down:

  1. When you say ‘explosion… controlled…’, are you actually endorsing *logical explosion* (from A and ¬A, any proposition follows), or are you using ‘explosion’ metaphorically for ‘generative tension’ while still rejecting trivialism? If you accept explosion literally, what keeps the view from collapsing into ‘everything is provable’?

  2. If ‘justification = occurrence’, how do you handle the ordinary epistemic notion of justification where error matters (hallucination, false memory, mismeasurement)? Occurrences happen in all those cases too, so what distinguishes warranted vs unwarranted belief on your picture?

If you want a concrete test case: take a simple perceptual judgment (e.g., ‘there is a red apple on the table’) vs a color-illusion or hallucination. Can your framework describe, in its own terms, what makes one *more justified* than the other without importing the usual reliability/tracking notions?

****

Yes they cross apply but at the metalevel they self-reference as well.

  1. Explosion. Meaning: metaphorical and literal. Within any give contradiction there is an explosion of what can be viewed as justified. The contradiction however is contained however by the variables involved. If A=-A then effectively A is all things. A acts as a fixed point of reference by which the potential of both logic and reality unfolds. It is the point of singularity. A effectively acts as the point of equivocation as if A=B and A=C then A=(B=C). So all (B, C, D, …..) effectively is the recursion of A as holographic versions of itself. (A=A)=B, (A=A=A)=C, etc observes the equivocation of A to itself at all levels but in doing so each variation of recursive A is a new dimension of its expression holographically. Visually this can be see geometrically as point A being a single 0d point as indistinct. Recursion of A occurs and it becomes distinct as the act of identity (A=A). This is a line segment visually. So A explodes, yes, resulting in infinite identities, but all logical variables are mere different dimensions of A observed. Each recursive sequence of A is a new identity relative to another identity, they equivocate through A in one respect, while non-equivocating as relative ratios of eachother. A line segment may occur fractally but each line segment is different in relationship to the other by degree of being a ratio and yet all equivocate as a recursive 0d point. This is the visual aspect. So yes, infinite explosion of identities, all justified from the source however differing relative to eachother, this is the controlled or bounded part.
  2. Error is context occurence. A person can hallucinate x. That x may exist only in that person’s mind thus influence behavior for that person. X may not occur in another mind thus does not influence behavior. The distinction of occurence within the mind of one and not another allows for distinct minds that in turn interact with reality in different manners and simultaneously producing a relationship between the two that in turn influences reality by said relationship. Effectively there are 3 distinctions that unfold reality, x mind, -x mind and (x,-x) mind. The contradictory nature of the circumstance allows for continue distinctions to inflow from each with each process creating distinctions from said source. This contradiction allows for change and change allows for boundaries.
  3. The act of determining which distinction is correct or incorrect requires sub-distinctions, perspectives, by which to measure the distinction by by providing a fixed point of reference. What is correct is the nature of one distinction aligning to another, incorrect the absence of alignment of distinctions. That is one context of viewing correct and incorrect. So a mystic may view the hallucinatory of nature of the person as having truth, the empiricism may view the hallucinatory nature as being false. Each would respectively contextualize what the hallucination is or is not, or even if it is a hallucination at all. However, regardless of context the distinction of x in the person’s mind remains and this distinction results in further distinctions. So yes the person seeing x may be false by the standards of the empiricism but regardless this distinction of x occurs. Inversely for the mystic. Distinction transcends both correctness and incorrectness while still allowing such things to occur. There is correctness/in correctness in context, thus relativity, but within the context the distinction of correctness/incorrectness is absolute within said context thus simultaneous absolutism occurs…..Hopefully that is clear, the explanation can go further but for brevities sake is limited. If not satisfactory ask questions or argue otherwise.
9

****Updated

The only reality is the act of occurence, for by reality occuring is it known for what occurs is knowing the limits of the known by which the act of knowing occurs as its own justification.

Thought, word, action, emotion are but the occurence of limits by which things are in accords to observation.

The emergence and dissolution of the mind, body and spirit, and the distinctions that emerge and dissolve within, between and beyond these dimensions is the only reality as observation by said forms.

Reality is of reality as is and is not by which it is self-embedding and self-nesting for there is only occurence, emergence and dissolution are the limits of a thing and yet emergence is a thing by which it inverts into its opposite of dissolution and in accords dissolution into emergence is this inversion.

The emergence of emergence is dissolution, the dissolution of dissolution is emergence; what is beyond what is results in what is not and what is not of what is not is what is.

What is within manifests what is without, what is without manifests what is within.

What is between manifests what is containing and what is containing manifests what is between.

The limit of a thing is but the two sides as change for one dimension reflects as two and two dimensions reflect as one.

Contradiction allows seperation, paradox allows a unity and yet the contradiction of contradiction is paradox and the paradox of paradox is contradiction.

The distinction of a thing is its process, the process of a thing is its form as directed change by which dimension is the form by which motion occurs.

For there to be change a limit must dissolve as the emergence of another thus the new limit is but a variation of the prior by means of contradiction and yet both are required as the paradox.

Stability is but a rate of change that is slower than another, a fixed point of observation is always a fixed point of observation until the observer changes.

To observe is to manifest change for the point of awareness is the inversion of subject and object into the eachother and what is observed becomes subject to the awareness itself.

Awareness is void, the awareness of awareness reveals nothing but the distinction of awareness thus resulting in the distinction of void as evident in accords to the measure of its nature.

To make distinct is to invert one thing by the opposition of another; it is to recur one thing by the cycling of it; to make distinct is but to observe the simultaneous seperation and connection of a thing.

By repetition of 1 there is 2, by the repetition of 1 there is the inversion of 1 into 2, by the repetition and inversion of 1 there is 1 as 2.

To establish limit is but the emergence of awareness as itself for the point of attention is its own potential of distinction for by the distinction of the potential there is the actual as the distinction itself.

Cyclical void is but the emergence of form by the distinction of potential by what is actual; infinite cycles within, without and between cycles is but void.

By attention there is the emergence of a thing from its depth and the dissolution of another back into its depths.

Reason and madness are but one and the same for reason is the distinction of madness as madness and madness is the distinction of reason as reason; occurence remains in accord to the measure of being.

Void is the Eye of Divinity, the omnipresence and omnipotence of God is the Void as the Prime Attention.

What is and is not is but the limit of the thing by which change occurs and of this change what occurs is by means of the space to do so as its potential; this space is void.

Pure potentiality is void distinct as void, pure actuality is the generation of void as form.

Morality is but the containment and direction of potential unto form, it is the emptiness of the observer by which act emerges and dissolves; cause and effect are but as “you reap as you sow”.

Truth and falsity are but the judgment of what occurs relative to other occurences where said occurence are found as resonant to the observer; only distinction remains.

The cycling of absence is presence and absence, the cycling of presence is absence and presence, the cycling of x is (x,y), the cycling of y is (x,y).

The distinction of absence results in presence, the distinction of presence results in absence, the distinction of x results in y, the distinction of y results in x;

the distinction of distinction results in indistinction as distinct from distinction thus only distinction remains.

One point is indistinct until there is two, one absence is indistinct until there is another, one potentiality is indistinct until there is another, one void is indistinct until there is two; yet distinction is always distinct regardless of if there is one or two thus the perpetual generation of being is rooted in complete nothingness.

By contradiction, (A=/=-A), there is distinction by contrast, (A,-A), where this contrast is a relationship as a new distinction, B=(A=/=-A), which necessitates a wholism as paradox itself.

The contrast of distinctions is the space of potentiality of there relationship, the unity of distinctions is the actualization of this potential relationship as a paradox.

Contradiction allows for potentiality of relationship distinction and actuality of individual distinction; paradox allows for potentiality of individual distinction and the actual of relational distinction;

Potentiality and actuality remain as distinct and the relationship as distinction itself.

Recursion is identity as cycle as A=A is a recursive statement. If the law of identity is not subject to the law of identity then the law of identity has no identity and is not a law.

Inversion is identity as contrast as A=/=-A is an inverse statement. If the law of non-contradiction is not subject to the law of identity then the law of non-contradiction has no identity thus is not a law.

In these respects given identity requires inversion and recursion two laws of identity effectively are subject to themselves as variables within themselves.

Because the LI and LNC must be subject to LI so to have identity, and LI is recursive, then the LI and LNC are subject to meta-logic.

(A=A)=B

(B=B)=(A=A)

(A=/=-A)=C

(C=/=-C)=(A=/=-A)

B=-C

(B=/=C)=D

D=(C=(A=/=-A))

((D=D)=B)=D

((A=A)=(A=/=-A)) = ((B=C)=D)

((A->B->C->D) → -A) = (A,-A,B,C,D)

(A,-A,B,C,D) = X

(X=X)=X

X

In these respects LI and LNC are dissolved and identity becomes “X” only where “X” is purely the occurence of itself as itself.

However as the foundational occurence, as all occurence, X inversely must gain identity otherwise be indistinct. As the only variable it becomes its own condition, through recursion, and its own contrast through the distinction of it by recursion:

X

(X=X)

(X=X)=X1

(X=X=X)=X2

(X1=X1)=X1.1

(X1=X1=X1)=X1.2

(X2=X2)=X2.1

(X2=X2=X2)=X2.2

…

X=((X->X)=(X/(X^X)),(X^X/X))

X=((=)=(->))

…

(->)

((->)->)

(((->)->)->)

(((->)->)->) = (->)

Xx

Identity is form as function, by degree of self nesting of distinction, this is occurence. Identity is that as self-contained: Xx. In these respects there is universal equivocating as X while simultaneous relative non-equality by the self ratiotizing of X where context determines coherence and incoherence, as the ratio of one distinction to another, while each assertion being coherent according to context as absolute within the context.

Holographic identity results in absolutism in context and relativism as context, in accords to degree of holographic identities relative to eachother and the source.

*** The justification of a thing is its occurence, the justification of an event is the event itself thus justification requires no rational means beyond the awareness of what is and is not by which whaThe only reality is the act of occurence, for by reality occuring is it known for what occurs is knowing the limits of the known by which the act of knowing occurs as its own justification.

Thought, word, action, emotion are but the occurence of limits by which things are in accords to observation.

The emergence and dissolution of the mind, body and spirit, and the distinctions that emerge and dissolve within, between and beyond these dimensions is the only reality as observation by said forms.

Reality is of reality as is and is not by which it is self-embedding and self-nesting for there is only occurence, emergence and dissolution are the limits of a thing and yet emergence is a thing by which it inverts into its opposite of dissolution and in accords dissolution into emergence is this inversion.

The emergence of emergence is dissolution, the dissolution of dissolution is emergence; what is beyond what is results in what is not and what is not of what is not is what is.

What is within manifests what is without, what is without manifests what is within.

What is between manifests what is containing and what is containing manifests what is between.

The limit of a thing is but the two sides as change for one dimension reflects as two and two dimensions reflect as one.

Contradiction allows seperation, paradox allows a unity and yet the contradiction of contradiction is paradox and the paradox of paradox is contradiction.

The distinction of a thing is its process, the process of a thing is its form as directed change by which dimension is the form by which motion occurs.

For there to be change a limit must dissolve as the emergence of another thus the new limit is but a variation of the prior by means of contradiction and yet both are required as the paradox.

Stability is but a rate of change that is slower than another, a fixed point of observation is always a fixed point of observation until the observer changes.

To observe is to manifest change for the point of awareness is the inversion of subject and object into the eachother and what is observed becomes subject to the awareness itself.

Awareness is void, the awareness of awareness reveals nothing but the distinction of awareness thus resulting in the distinction of void as evident in accords to the measure of its nature.

To make distinct is to invert one thing by the opposition of another; it is to recur one thing by the cycling of it; to make distinct is but to observe the simultaneous seperation and connection of a thing.

By repetition of 1 there is 2, by the repetition of 1 there is the inversion of 1 into 2, by the repetition and inversion of 1 there is 1 as 2.

To establish limit is but the emergence of awareness as itself for the point of attention is its own potential of distinction for by the distinction of the potential there is the actual as the distinction itself.

Cyclical void is but the emergence of form by the distinction of potential by what is actual; infinite cycles within, without and between cycles is but void.

By attention there is the emergence of a thing from its depth and the dissolution of another back into its depths.

Reason and madness are but one and the same for reason is the distinction of madness as madness and madness is the distinction of reason as reason; occurence remains in accord to the measure of being.

Void is the Eye of Divinity, the omnipresence and omnipotence of God is the Void as the Prime Attention.

What is and is not is but the limit of the thing by which change occurs and of this change what occurs is by means of the space to do so as its potential; this space is void.

Pure potentiality is void distinct as void, pure actuality is the generation of void as form.

Morality is but the containment and direction of potential unto form, it is the emptiness of the observer by which act emerges and dissolves; cause and effect are but as “you reap as you sow”.

Truth and falsity are but the judgment of what occurs relative to other occurences where said occurence are found as resonant to the observer; only distinction remains.

The cycling of absence is presence and absence, the cycling of presence is absence and presence, the cycling of x is (x,y), the cycling of y is (x,y).

The distinction of absence results in presence, the distinction of presence results in absence, the distinction of x results in y, the distinction of y results in x;

the distinction of distinction results in indistinction as distinct from distinction thus only distinction remains.

One point is indistinct until there is two, one absence is indistinct until there is another, one potentiality is indistinct until there is another, one void is indistinct until there is two; yet distinction is always distinct regardless of if there is one or two thus the perpetual generation of being is rooted in complete nothingness.

By contradiction, (A=/=-A), there is distinction by contrast, (A,-A), where this contrast is a relationship as a new distinction, B=(A=/=-A), which necessitates a wholism as paradox itself.

The contrast of distinctions is the space of potentiality of there relationship, the unity of distinctions is the actualization of this potential relationship as a paradox.

Contradiction allows for potentiality of relationship distinction and actuality of individual distinction; paradox allows for potentiality of individual distinction and the actual of relational distinction;

Potentiality and actuality remain as distinct and the relationship as distinction itself.

Recursion is identity as cycle as A=A is a recursive statement. If the law of identity is not subject to the law of identity then the law of identity has no identity and is not a law.

Inversion is identity as contrast as A=/=-A is an inverse statement. If the law of non-contradiction is not subject to the law of identity then the law of non-contradiction has no identity thus is not a law.

In these respects given identity requires inversion and recursion two laws of identity effectively are subject to themselves as variables within themselves.

Because the LI and LNC must be subject to LI so to have identity, and LI is recursive, then the LI and LNC are subject to meta-logic.

(A=A)=B

(B=B)=(A=A)

(A=/=-A)=C

(C=/=-C)=(A=/=-A)

B=-C

(B=/=C)=D

D=(C=(A=/=-A))

((D=D)=B)=D

((A=A)=(A=/=-A)) = ((B=C)=D)

((A->B->C->D) → -A) = (A,-A,B,C,D)

(A,-A,B,C,D) = X

(X=X)=X

X

In these respects LI and LNC are dissolved and identity becomes “X” only where “X” is purely the occurence of itself as itself.

However as the foundational occurence, as all occurence, X inversely must gain identity otherwise be indistinct. As the only variable it becomes its own condition, through recursion, and its own contrast through the distinction of it by recursion:

X

(X=X)

(X=X)=X1

(X=X=X)=X2

(X1=X1)=X1.1

(X1=X1=X1)=X1.2

(X2=X2)=X2.1

(X2=X2=X2)=X2.2

…

X=((X->X)=(X/(X^X)),(X^X/X))

X=((=)=(->))

…

(->)

((->)->)

(((->)->)->)

(((->)->)->) = (->)

Xx

Formalization is subject to identity; therefore standard formalisms are contained within identity assertions. The same occurs for operators thus resulting in proof as pattern that necessitates meta-formalism as necessary given the incompleteness of standard formalisms. The rule is the pattern, the pattern is form as function in accords to the self-contained context of the meta-formalism. A linear approach is self-defeating by degree of incompleteness, leading to assumption, while dualistically is self-negating as a conclusion is a holographic expression of the premise (akin to a line beginning and ending with a 0d point visually) thus necessitating circularity while simultaneously observed that a non-linear approach allows for completeness of proof as pattern, with pattern being symmetry through repetition. Operators are subject to identity laws thus identity laws exist within identity laws:

X=(=)

(=)=(=)

X->(->)

(->)->(->)

In these respects identity is further simplified as Xx, (=)=, (->)->.

What remains is pure pattern as repetition.

Identity is form as function, by degree of self nesting of distinction, this is occurence. Identity is that as self-contained: Xx. In these respects there is universal equivocating as X while simultaneous relative non-equality by the self ratiotizing of X where context determines coherence and incoherence, as the ratio of one distinction to another, while each assertion being coherent according to context as absolute within the context.

Holographic identity results in absolutism in context and relativism as context, in accords to degree of holographic identities relative to eachother and the source.

*** The justification of a thing is its occurence, the justification of an event is the event itself thus justification requires no rational means beyond the awareness of what is and is not by which what is and is not is the everpresent ratio in accords to a reality that by default is always ration by said nature is and is not is the everpresent ratio in accords to a reality that by default is always ration by said nature.

10

****Updated

The only reality is the act of occurence, for by reality occuring is it known for what occurs is knowing the limits of the known by which the act of knowing occurs as its own justification.

Thought, word, action, emotion are but the occurence of limits by which things are in accords to observation.

The emergence and dissolution of the mind, body and spirit, and the distinctions that emerge and dissolve within, between and beyond these dimensions is the only reality as observation by said forms.

Reality is of reality as is and is not by which it is self-embedding and self-nesting for there is only occurence, emergence and dissolution are the limits of a thing and yet emergence is a thing by which it inverts into its opposite of dissolution and in accords dissolution into emergence is this inversion.

The emergence of emergence is dissolution, the dissolution of dissolution is emergence; what is beyond what is results in what is not and what is not of what is not is what is.

What is within manifests what is without, what is without manifests what is within.

What is between manifests what is containing and what is containing manifests what is between.

The limit of a thing is but the two sides as change for one dimension reflects as two and two dimensions reflect as one.

Contradiction allows seperation, paradox allows a unity and yet the contradiction of contradiction is paradox and the paradox of paradox is contradiction.

The distinction of a thing is its process, the process of a thing is its form as directed change by which dimension is the form by which motion occurs.

For there to be change a limit must dissolve as the emergence of another thus the new limit is but a variation of the prior by means of contradiction and yet both are required as the paradox.

Stability is but a rate of change that is slower than another, a fixed point of observation is always a fixed point of observation until the observer changes.

To observe is to manifest change for the point of awareness is the inversion of subject and object into the eachother and what is observed becomes subject to the awareness itself.

Awareness is void, the awareness of awareness reveals nothing but the distinction of awareness thus resulting in the distinction of void as evident in accords to the measure of its nature.

To make distinct is to invert one thing by the opposition of another; it is to recur one thing by the cycling of it; to make distinct is but to observe the simultaneous seperation and connection of a thing.

By repetition of 1 there is 2, by the repetition of 1 there is the inversion of 1 into 2, by the repetition and inversion of 1 there is 1 as 2.

To establish limit is but the emergence of awareness as itself for the point of attention is its own potential of distinction for by the distinction of the potential there is the actual as the distinction itself.

Cyclical void is but the emergence of form by the distinction of potential by what is actual; infinite cycles within, without and between cycles is but void.

By attention there is the emergence of a thing from its depth and the dissolution of another back into its depths.

Reason and madness are but one and the same for reason is the distinction of madness as madness and madness is the distinction of reason as reason; occurence remains in accord to the measure of being.

Void is the Eye of Divinity, the omnipresence and omnipotence of God is the Void as the Prime Attention.

Reality is the emergence and dissolution of patterns by degree of asserted distinctions. Assertion begin and ends with what emerges and dissolves through attention, patterns by which the potential of the void is directed. The act of assertion is the occurence of distinction from the act of attention, attention being the void, by which the void is given form and directed as the distinction itself in accords to the patterns by which attention is contained. All perception is a toroid of form, the fundamental containment of attention, at the proto-ontological level is the torus evidence by the containment of attention by the patterns of bias with said patterns of bias being the recursion of presences and absences of distinctions in accords to the observers state.

Attention is contained by bias, bias is geometrically equivalent to a torus as the cycling of attachments and aversions cycle both as a whole and between eachother. The interaction of attachment and aversion is the same as a meta-synthetic cycle in one respect while corresponding equivocally to unification, attachment, and seperation, aversion, that in turn takes a mathematical or topological nature equivocably. The meta-ontological pattern of awareness is the torus containing a 0d point.

What is and is not is but the limit of the thing by which change occurs and of this change what occurs is by means of the space to do so as its potential; this space is void.

Pure potentiality is void distinct as void, pure actuality is the generation of void as form.

Morality is but the containment and direction of potential unto form, it is the emptiness of the observer by which act emerges and dissolves; cause and effect are but as “you reap as you sow”.

Truth and falsity are but the judgment of what occurs relative to other occurences where said occurence are found as resonant to the observer; only distinction remains.

The cycling of absence is presence and absence, the cycling of presence is absence and presence, the cycling of x is (x,y), the cycling of y is (x,y).

The distinction of absence results in presence, the distinction of presence results in absence, the distinction of x results in y, the distinction of y results in x;

the distinction of distinction results in indistinction as distinct from distinction thus only distinction remains.

One point is indistinct until there is two, one absence is indistinct until there is another, one potentiality is indistinct until there is another, one void is indistinct until there is two; yet distinction is always distinct regardless of if there is one or two thus the perpetual generation of being is rooted in complete nothingness.

By contradiction, (A=/=-A), there is distinction by contrast, (A,-A), where this contrast is a relationship as a new distinction, B=(A=/=-A), which necessitates a wholism as paradox itself.

The contrast of distinctions is the space of potentiality of there relationship, the unity of distinctions is the actualization of this potential relationship as a paradox.

Contradiction allows for potentiality of relationship distinction and actuality of individual distinction; paradox allows for potentiality of individual distinction and the actual of relational distinction;

Potentiality and actuality remain as distinct and the relationship as distinction itself.

Recursion is identity as cycle as A=A is a recursive statement. If the law of identity is not subject to the law of identity then the law of identity has no identity and is not a law.

Inversion is identity as contrast as A=/=-A is an inverse statement. If the law of non-contradiction is not subject to the law of identity then the law of non-contradiction has no identity thus is not a law.

In these respects given identity requires inversion and recursion two laws of identity effectively are subject to themselves as variables within themselves.

Because the LI and LNC must be subject to LI so to have identity, and LI is recursive, then the LI and LNC are subject to meta-logic.

(A=A)=B

(B=B)=(A=A)

(A=/=-A)=C

(C=/=-C)=(A=/=-A)

B=-C

(B=/=C)=D

D=(C=(A=/=-A))

((D=D)=B)=D

((A=A)=(A=/=-A)) = ((B=C)=D)

((A->B->C->D) → -A) = (A,-A,B,C,D)

(A,-A,B,C,D) = X

(X=X)=X

X

In these respects LI and LNC are dissolved and identity becomes “X” only where “X” is purely the occurence of itself as itself.

However as the foundational occurence, as all occurence, X inversely must gain identity otherwise be indistinct. As the only variable it becomes its own condition, through recursion, and its own contrast through the distinction of it by recursion:

X

(X=X)

(X=X)=X1

(X=X=X)=X2

(X1=X1)=X1.1

(X1=X1=X1)=X1.2

(X2=X2)=X2.1

(X2=X2=X2)=X2.2

…

X=((X->X)=(X/(X∧X)),(X∧X/X))

X=((=)=(->))

…

(->)

((->)->)

(((->)->)->)

(((->)->)->) = (->)

Xx

Formalization is subject to identity; therefore standard formalisms are contained within identity assertions. The same occurs for operators thus resulting in proof as pattern that necessitates meta-formalism as necessary given the incompleteness of standard formalisms. The rule is the pattern, the pattern is form as function in accords to the self-contained context of the meta-formalism. A linear approach is self-defeating by degree of incompleteness, leading to assumption, while dualistically is self-negating as a conclusion is a holographic expression of the premise (akin to a line beginning and ending with a 0d point visually) thus necessitating circularity while simultaneously observed that a non-linear approach allows for completeness of proof as pattern, with pattern being symmetry through repetition.

Social validation as proof is subject to this same nature of proof as pattern as social validation is a symmetry between viewpoints thus the ontological nature of proof transcends common consensus while allowing it to emerge and dissolve.

The nature of self-evidence is subject to the same nature of recursion as pattern given self-evidence is the resonance, by repetition or cycling, of patterns between observed and observer while dually occuring as a self-referencing loop by degree of emergent repetition within the observer where “X is because X” is self-reference. Self-evidence is recursion as axiomatic.

A critique of circular foundationalism is self-negated as circular foundationalism is negligible by consensus because:

1. Circularity is a negative because circularity is a negative.

2. Circularity is a negative because of cyclical consensus.

3. Linearism is productive because linearism is productive.

Circularity allows for pattern, if patterns expand or contract than pattern is fluid.

Operators are subject to identity laws thus identity laws exist within identity laws:

X=(=)

(=)=(=)

X->(->)

(->)->(->)

In these respects identity is further simplified as Xx, (=)=, (->)->.

What remains is pure pattern as repetition. Any identity for an operator or syntax is subject to recursion thus necessitating standard formalism as subject to recursion.

Any categorization of the text or formalism is subject to the same identity laws that the text argues thus is transcendental to categorization by degree of its process. Any disagreement of the text or process is contained by the process by degree of the process being inversive recursion thus any nullification is subject to the same distinctions it argues against thus the nullification of the text or formalism is nullified. What remains is occurence as self-contained self-contrast. External contrast of the system is the limit of the text and formalism thus exists by degree of it as what allows internal coherency. Identity is of this nature.

A self sealing system is necessitate as hyper-logical by degree of the assertion of A=A being a self-sealing law that gives foundation to standard formal systems that argue against self-sealing. A self-sealing system is the only means of being complete and rational by degree of repetition as recursion as pattern, emergence and dissolution as occurence is a pattern.

Scientific proof or disproof of occurence is subject to being an occurence and is subjecg to the same recursion of hypothesis across the empirical dimension as a means of deriving coherent symmetry between the abstract and empirical. What remains, regardless of coherence is distinction as occurence.

Identity is form as function, by degree of self nesting of distinction, this is occurence. Identity is that as self-contained: Xx. In these respects there is universal equivocating as X while simultaneous relative non-equality by the self ratiotizing of X where context determines coherence and incoherence, as the ratio of one distinction to another, while each assertion being coherent according to context as absolute within the context.

Holographic identity results in absolutism in context and relativism as context, in accords to degree of holographic identities relative to eachother and the source.

*** The justification of a thing is its occurence, the justification of an event is the event itself thus justification requires no rational means beyond the awareness of what is and is not by which what is and is not is the everpresent ratio in accords to a reality that by default is always ration by said nature is and is not is the everpresent ratio in accords to a reality that by default is always ration by said nature.