Proto-Identity as Emergence

Update***+++×××===

Proto-Identity as Emergence

Here is a symbolic argument:

There is a point, it is indistinct as there is only a point: ●

The point repeats and becomes distinct by the act of repetition creating contrast: ●●

The contrasting points are effective one point as many as the set is now a unified entity as a relation: (●●)●

The one point as many, is still one point thus repeats again creating scale: (●●)●●

This process repeats and as it repeats so does scale repeat: (((●●)●●)●●)

One scale exists relative to another thus contrast occurs by difference (●●●)(●●);

however one scale (●●●) contains the other scale (●●) as condensed where the difference is (●);

Further, one scale (●●) generates another (●●●) as expanded where the difference is (●);

The difference of ●, across expansion and condensation, reveals ● as the limit of the distinction itself as both that appears in accords to angle of another scale: ((●●●)(●●))(●●●●●)

● exists across scale as the limit of the scale by its own repetition;

the repetition of ● is the distinction of the point as the scale as the self reference results in self contrast and the self contrast results in structure as scale.

the repetition of ●● is the distinction of scales as the point as self-reference results in self-containment and the self containment results emergence of scale.

Scale is identity as context or condition as the boundaries by which identity is derived reflexively: the contained identified by what it is contained by, the container identified by what it contains.

The distinction of a thing is its repetition, its repetition is self contrast, its self contrast is self containment, its self containment is its emergence as identity.

Identity is purely emergence, the foundational identity is a single point as all limits, intuitively or observationally, are both reduced to (a) point(s), converge to (a) point(s), or build to (a) point(s). In these respects a single point becomes transcendental symbolism of ontological realities, as the progressive emergence of ● results in corresponding limits that are moved beyond without negation of origin (evidenced by the symbolic formalism).

Distinction is repetition by self contrast that inversely results in the whole of the relation as self-contained, as the self-contrast is a self repetition unto condition, thus identity is derivative of itself as process as identity becomes a scale of process(es) with the scale being a relative meta-scale for another scale.

The identity of ●● is derivative of both the identity of ● and the identity of ●●● as:

●● contains ●●● as both ● (the foundation of ●●●) and (●●●)(●●●) {as ●●● is reducible to ● from another scale}.

●● contrasts to ●●● as both ● is the difference and ●●● is reducible to the contrast of (●●)(●●)(●●) {as ●● is reducible to ● from another scale}

Identity is the limit of process in accord to the scale(s) external and internal of said process thus effectively is emergence by degree.

Emergence is process, process is scale, scale is identity; the identity of this assertion is the ratio of the applied meanings in natural language by means of symbols, the proto-logical symbol of language is ● as ● is the most primitive symbol of beginning, conclusion, unification and divergence, summarized fully as transitional, in accords to context of use.

The next degree of this emergence is the basic protological symbol of the line segment which emerges from ●●

There is a line segment.

The line segment is composed of infinite line segments, which in turn are composed of infinite line segments;

The line segment composes infinite line segments, with each line segment composed infinite line segments.

The level of division of the line segment retains the division as the line segment itself across scale as the line segment being the degree by which the line segments are divided as line segments.

Division requires that which divides, the limit of division is that which divides thus resulting in division as self-scaling of what is dividing within the context of that which is divided.

Division as self scaling inversely result in magnification of what is dividing for a line segment X which contains line segments Y is effectively Y repeated multiplicatively as the whole line segment X as scale.

Division and multiplication are inverses, these inverses are fractal states unfolding by degree of compression (division) and expansion (multiplication).

What remains is scale invariance as the fixed point of division or multiplication resulting in scales; a line segment as two line segments is the one as a ratio of itself, two line segments as one line segment is the two as the ratio itself.

This scale invariance results in compounding of dimensions as the line segment is 1 dimensional by nature. The inversion of one line segment results in a horizon and vertice, the inversion of horizon and vertice results in depth, so on an so forth as dimensions occur holographically as each dimension is but the scale invariance of one that occurs recursively, the inversion of dimensions is but the inherent contrast induced by recursion as argued prior.

The nature of material phenomena becomes that of recursive scales that correspondingly results in a particle/wave duality as relative scales of the other, recursive by degree of structure (a particle repeating across space, a wave as repetition through alternation) with the field be holographic dimension of the two.

Number occurs as the distinction of space, in use obviously, but as structure as well where the recursion of points is the recursion of number, the recursion of number resulting in the dualisms of addition and subtraction (where positive and negative are but embedded addition and substraction, the recursion of addition/subtraction as multiplication/ division, the recursion of multiplication/ division as exponents/roots.

Unifying the results is in that act of awareness itself as awareness is observed as nothing, and indistinct point, when observed, and the objects of awareness are the scales by which awareness is imprinted and contain through said scales in a manner that further loops the dynamic between subject and object.

I didn’t read that because in order for any of that to be possible all the dots already gotta be there.

I do have a follow up question, though.

How are oil and water possible in the same universe?

Your question seems interesting. Can you please elucidate your question?

Sure. How are oppositions possible in a UNIverse?

The dot is your point of awareness, something you apparently did not apply to the text.

Simple they occur and there occurence allows for difference and with difference identity. Opposition allows changes, is change.

I come of get that , in my mind a vanishing point is also one through which all points proto enter, as the One turns to many on a re-distributive analytic, where their sameness can not be described as other then identifiable as one.

The analysis correlates with its synthetic de-differentiation.

. Got it.

I am not the dot or I cannot be aware of the dot externally to me, so that’s at least two dots… unless you were talking about self-awareness… but if all there is is the dot, then what is all this other business with other dots? And how does self make sense if there is no other-than-self? And if the two dots are complementary rather than canceling oppositions, the whole that encompasses them is this whole nuther dot.

And it just sort of spectrums out from there in an infinite tessellating fractal iteration of harmonic triads.

Sounds to me like the condition for the possibility of change is rather permanent and encompasses all the change.

…have you been teasing your cat with a laser pointer? Not nice.

It’s funny , I dreamed of the two cats coming around, they were competitive , one got sick, the other felt some empathy for it and started to be less combative, even licking the other one like it was a kitten

On the points made above regarding points, to be made, pointedly point out that holography may mirror the internal realization that pointillism has a sense to it, as a kind of proto deconstruction started a trending development as a warning to those trying to make sense of it.

Point: smart alecs are neither made or born that way.

Funny how made=nurture, born=nature.

Neither acknowledge design/choice.

Both act like design nullifies choice.

Choice neither creates nor destroys the necessary, merely aligns with the _________.

To be aware of awareness is to observe a void. Awareness is a void. This void is a point, it is 0 dimensional.

The recursion of a point is the scale by which it becomes distinct as a point. A simple line for example, or a excitation in a field.

The condition for change is everpresent potentiality, that absence of what is actual, the void of what is actual. The condition for change is not condition at all in the absolute sense, in the relative sense it is a relative absence of specific thing or things.

The point is neither made nor born, created or destroyed. The same void one sees within there awareness of awareness is the same void by which things emerge and dissolve. What differs one void, one’s awareness, from another, another’s awareness, is the cycle of biases.

void +/• void = void, son

This would concern the debate whether Uniqueness is fundamentally possible or not, which seems to touch on the hearth of philosophers’ actual perspective in practice.

An example of a squabble on another forum (the admin vs Terrapin Station):

One might argue that the idea of inherent Uniqueness, and thus the idea of opposites, is ultimately a perspective?

…uniqueness like the singularity or a miracle?

Y’gotta read this one.

1 Like

It seems to be a very interesting conversation indeed! I will have a closer look at it/read it better :wink:

Uniqueness would concern the idea as captured by Terrapin Station:

Would you agree with his perspective?

…they sure do a lot of saying the word “other” to connect to something that is somehow completely unrelated and totally unique. …as if there were/are at least one other that is same/comparable… in various contexts/ways… making everything they’re saying refute itself.

…how did they even use words if they are correct?