Definitions:
By Good I mean that which occupies a high state of existence.
By Evil I mean that which occupies a low state of existence.
Notice that 'high' and 'low' are subjective terms and are only really understood through subjective means, i.e. by something being higher or lower than another. This does not mean the very nature of good and evil is subjective and that there is hence no objective system of meta-ethics, for notice that if we prescribed an ultimate state of goodness and an ultimate state of evil we come to our definitions of God and the void.
For God is being highest infinite in attributes, and nothing is state of existence with the lowest possible attribute, and we had previously defined states of existence to simply be a measure of attribute.
We should also come to the epiphany that our path of life should be strive to attain a higher state of existence and to hence transcend from material bonds and ascend to infinite singularity, not confine the mind to form. This is what is 'good', and what is 'evil' is that which would reduce our state of existence, i.e. form a path of intellectual humiliation and that which would subordinate our very being.
To lower our very being is to fall to material desire and form, and fall to a state of mind which only seeks to further its immediate material pleasure forsaking all knowledge and accepting falsehood and ignorance, which is truly evil. The states of arrogance, greed, selfishness and anger shall all destroy our essence and seem counter-productive to the very benefit of thought, to which the mind is a blessing.
Note: Even thought the existence of God has not been proven it is easy to criticize his being by stating that highest infinite singularity would contain evil. But our definition of evil must vary between ethics and meta-ethics, perhaps more appropriate would be that which lowers the state of existence and the definitions must be used in its suitable context. In this case, it is an elementary idea that God would contain 'evil' but the very question is of whether God himself is evil. For him to be he must devalue his very existence by lowering its state which from the very definition is impossible for the singularity and form bond to make a unified existence where one cannot exist independently without the other.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Corollaries to Doubt
Definition: The mind is the singularity which one identifies as constituting his essence and being.
If one doubts that the mind is of singularity then conceive it being of form, for no variation could occur in thought processes or projected material reality, i.e. mode of thought would be confined to single state. Note that this does not mean the mind is not form entirely, for it could be a form of a higher singularity but this shall not be addressed immediately.
We shall first address whether it is possible to doubt the existence of oneself, since our very mind is a singularity the material realm encompasses individual forms of objects known to the mind. Since these forms are of another singularity our mind must come to know of this singularity first, as it is possible for form to exist independent of singularity, and when our singularity encompasses that of material forms it is safe to say that at the very least our mind is formed from infinitely generalized thoughts of the material realm which we inhabit. Therefore it follows that at the very least the material reality is contained in the singularity of the mind.
However, to the keen thinker this is not the case, for assume it was - and it is well proven from previous statements that we can think of deeper metaphysical ideas and quantities such as natural numbers whose singularity is of a countable infinite. And since we proved this to be immaterial our mind must encompass some immaterial structure. Singularities can be said to be immaterial, and are hence greater than the material world; our mind must be immaterial in essence as to avoid contradiction of basic principles.
Furthermore, it is conceivable to ask from what structure our conception of infinity arisen For to understand infinite singularity from material form one must be acquainted with infinite forms, and this is clearly impossible. Our conception of infinity must have arisen from an immaterial state, boundless of time. Since our mind is singularity in itself, infinity must be embedded in its structure, now we have already passed illusion of material state and hence of time so physical cause and effect are not of essence here. But recalling our generalized definition of cause and effect we ask from what singularity our mind must have begetteth, for in this all our conception of infinity and of course all our very being must have arisen.
We are left with two fundamental paths both leading to drastically different conclusions. One being the acceptance of ones mind as initial substance and singularity, hence encompassing all existence and the highest infinite. Our mind would hence be God. The other being acceptance of state greater than our own, and with an infinity greater than another infinity one cannot stop but must make an infinite sequence of itself. I shall not discuss the implications of doing so now, but rather concentrate on the first proposition.
If we are the initial singularity then our form must be initial singularity and we would come to know of ourselves as substance from which all things arise. Since we must come to know of things before we come to know of ourselves this is not a logical proposition, to elaborate our very mind does not contain crystalline and vivid conceptions of all that does exist and this reality seems to be of a passing dream of which we have no control. The only knowledge it is safe to say that one truly knows a priori would be of infinity.But from this infinity which we have knowledge over we can construct infinite greater than the other, and form an infinite sequence of infinite sets each varying in greater dimension than the other. Notice that for a set to be countable its dimension of infinity remains the same, and for it to be uncountable it would increase by a factor of infinity. So if we made an infinite sequence of infinities known to us it must be of the same order, say countable. But if the infinities contained were of uncountable magnitude then the resulting set would be of uncountable magnitude of uncountable elements. This is assuredly greater than what we would have conceived of. For if not, then we would be simply renaming the elements and devaluing this state of existence by negating their essence. And hence it follows that there is knowledge greater than our own.
If one doubts that the mind is of singularity then conceive it being of form, for no variation could occur in thought processes or projected material reality, i.e. mode of thought would be confined to single state. Note that this does not mean the mind is not form entirely, for it could be a form of a higher singularity but this shall not be addressed immediately.
We shall first address whether it is possible to doubt the existence of oneself, since our very mind is a singularity the material realm encompasses individual forms of objects known to the mind. Since these forms are of another singularity our mind must come to know of this singularity first, as it is possible for form to exist independent of singularity, and when our singularity encompasses that of material forms it is safe to say that at the very least our mind is formed from infinitely generalized thoughts of the material realm which we inhabit. Therefore it follows that at the very least the material reality is contained in the singularity of the mind.
However, to the keen thinker this is not the case, for assume it was - and it is well proven from previous statements that we can think of deeper metaphysical ideas and quantities such as natural numbers whose singularity is of a countable infinite. And since we proved this to be immaterial our mind must encompass some immaterial structure. Singularities can be said to be immaterial, and are hence greater than the material world; our mind must be immaterial in essence as to avoid contradiction of basic principles.
Furthermore, it is conceivable to ask from what structure our conception of infinity arisen For to understand infinite singularity from material form one must be acquainted with infinite forms, and this is clearly impossible. Our conception of infinity must have arisen from an immaterial state, boundless of time. Since our mind is singularity in itself, infinity must be embedded in its structure, now we have already passed illusion of material state and hence of time so physical cause and effect are not of essence here. But recalling our generalized definition of cause and effect we ask from what singularity our mind must have begetteth, for in this all our conception of infinity and of course all our very being must have arisen.
We are left with two fundamental paths both leading to drastically different conclusions. One being the acceptance of ones mind as initial substance and singularity, hence encompassing all existence and the highest infinite. Our mind would hence be God. The other being acceptance of state greater than our own, and with an infinity greater than another infinity one cannot stop but must make an infinite sequence of itself. I shall not discuss the implications of doing so now, but rather concentrate on the first proposition.
If we are the initial singularity then our form must be initial singularity and we would come to know of ourselves as substance from which all things arise. Since we must come to know of things before we come to know of ourselves this is not a logical proposition, to elaborate our very mind does not contain crystalline and vivid conceptions of all that does exist and this reality seems to be of a passing dream of which we have no control. The only knowledge it is safe to say that one truly knows a priori would be of infinity.But from this infinity which we have knowledge over we can construct infinite greater than the other, and form an infinite sequence of infinite sets each varying in greater dimension than the other. Notice that for a set to be countable its dimension of infinity remains the same, and for it to be uncountable it would increase by a factor of infinity. So if we made an infinite sequence of infinities known to us it must be of the same order, say countable. But if the infinities contained were of uncountable magnitude then the resulting set would be of uncountable magnitude of uncountable elements. This is assuredly greater than what we would have conceived of. For if not, then we would be simply renaming the elements and devaluing this state of existence by negating their essence. And hence it follows that there is knowledge greater than our own.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Initial Thoughts on Cause and Effect
By cause I mean the initial singularity, and by effect I mean the forms which it produces. To defend this I give an example of lighting a fire, the very act of doing so incorporates the existence of fire itself. Suppose it did not, then the existence of fire would not be contained in the attribute of the cause, and hence some attribute could only produce attribute of the same extent as proven in an earlier post. From this it is true that the cause could not produce an effect outside its initial margins, and hence the act of lighting a fire could not produce fire in itself. This is preposterous, and so it is proven that the essence of fire is contained in the attribute of its cause.
Recall our definition of a singularity: 'By singularity I mean the infinitely generalized state of a substance, from which infinite forms or particular versions may spring'
From this an interesting result is proven; a cause cannot be known from an effect.
Since we said a cause is the initial singularity and since a singularity produces infinite forms, then by knowing a finite amount of forms one only perceives of a finite portion of the singularity and hence not the total singularity itself. One will deny this and say that through induction we will come to know of the singularity. But if I asked the speaker to define what he means by induction, it would be impossible to accept it as a viable method without extending finity to infinity. Doing so requires preconceived judgement of infinity. Not only does it require this, but it must require preconceived judgement of infinity in the context of the singularity. In essence, it requires preconceived judgement of the singularity beforehand, but we defined this to not be the case. Hence the theorem is proven.
Giving a final example, take the case of the natural numbers. By knowing a few numbers one cannot come to know of all the numbers, which are contained in the singularity of the numerical countable infinite in the appropriate context. In this case however, I argue that we are equipped with the necessary knowledge beforehand. This hints us towards the context of said infinity, and suggests that it must be known to us a priori. How could this be the case if we have not come to know of a physical infinity? The only solution is that the the attribute of the infinity and hence the singularity is not contained in the physical realm and is hence immaterial.
Recall our definition of a singularity: 'By singularity I mean the infinitely generalized state of a substance, from which infinite forms or particular versions may spring'
From this an interesting result is proven; a cause cannot be known from an effect.
Since we said a cause is the initial singularity and since a singularity produces infinite forms, then by knowing a finite amount of forms one only perceives of a finite portion of the singularity and hence not the total singularity itself. One will deny this and say that through induction we will come to know of the singularity. But if I asked the speaker to define what he means by induction, it would be impossible to accept it as a viable method without extending finity to infinity. Doing so requires preconceived judgement of infinity. Not only does it require this, but it must require preconceived judgement of infinity in the context of the singularity. In essence, it requires preconceived judgement of the singularity beforehand, but we defined this to not be the case. Hence the theorem is proven.
Giving a final example, take the case of the natural numbers. By knowing a few numbers one cannot come to know of all the numbers, which are contained in the singularity of the numerical countable infinite in the appropriate context. In this case however, I argue that we are equipped with the necessary knowledge beforehand. This hints us towards the context of said infinity, and suggests that it must be known to us a priori. How could this be the case if we have not come to know of a physical infinity? The only solution is that the the attribute of the infinity and hence the singularity is not contained in the physical realm and is hence immaterial.
Concerning Doubt
To doubt a given object or structure one questions the metaphysical validity, by that I mean the truth of said object which may be form, singularity, or even God himself. Notice that when me say truth we mean the extent of reality possessed by the object or structure, and as we defined the extent of existence to be contained solely within the attribute we should simply question the extent of attribute of the form or structure.
To make this more clear, the singularity contains more reality than the form so even if one doubts the form the singularity itself cannot be doubted to the same extent. The necessity is also of utmost importance, and since the singularity creates infinite representations of itself or forms, it is of necessary importance for it to exist for its forms to exist. This is not to say that it must, for the singularity of bodies does not need exist - ponder over this thought for a moment if unclear on its significance.
From above it should make itself clear that one can test for the reality of some object or structure by simply doubting it and through the rational faculty of mental reasoning come to conclude on its necessity or attribute. Further, one must not fall under the illusion that the attribute can be ascribed some objective scale isomorphic to the natural numbers or otherwise; separation into finity and infinity is sufficient. Elaborating on this further, only forms exist in finite representation and each singularity exists of an infinity each higher than the other. We need not concern ourself with forms which necessarily exist due to a singularity, but observing the attribute of a singularity is sufficient.
I argue that the necessity of a structure existing is in absolute alignment with its attribute. For we define something to necessarily exist for its products necessarily exist. Hence its product is merely a form of the initial singularity, as we argued before the singularity occupies a higher attribute than the form it produces. In fact the singularity which may produce a singularity occupies a state of greater attribute and hence existence by the same reasoning. (If this remains unclear consult my previous article titled 'Preliminaries for Propositions on the Nature of Existence')
We come to the last obstacle, doubting God - a necessary obstacle on the path to enlightenment. I shall not describe any new proposition here, or even attempt to prove the nature or existence of God. Simply, when doubting an absolute infinite one must study the necessity of existence as the attribute has already been defined. It is a useful moment to elaborate on our definition of God, not only is he substance infinite in his attributes but furthermore infinite in dimensions of infinity. In other words, I mean the absolute infinite of which existence is an attribute, and henceforth is a fundamental substance to existence itself.
To make this more clear, the singularity contains more reality than the form so even if one doubts the form the singularity itself cannot be doubted to the same extent. The necessity is also of utmost importance, and since the singularity creates infinite representations of itself or forms, it is of necessary importance for it to exist for its forms to exist. This is not to say that it must, for the singularity of bodies does not need exist - ponder over this thought for a moment if unclear on its significance.
From above it should make itself clear that one can test for the reality of some object or structure by simply doubting it and through the rational faculty of mental reasoning come to conclude on its necessity or attribute. Further, one must not fall under the illusion that the attribute can be ascribed some objective scale isomorphic to the natural numbers or otherwise; separation into finity and infinity is sufficient. Elaborating on this further, only forms exist in finite representation and each singularity exists of an infinity each higher than the other. We need not concern ourself with forms which necessarily exist due to a singularity, but observing the attribute of a singularity is sufficient.
I argue that the necessity of a structure existing is in absolute alignment with its attribute. For we define something to necessarily exist for its products necessarily exist. Hence its product is merely a form of the initial singularity, as we argued before the singularity occupies a higher attribute than the form it produces. In fact the singularity which may produce a singularity occupies a state of greater attribute and hence existence by the same reasoning. (If this remains unclear consult my previous article titled 'Preliminaries for Propositions on the Nature of Existence')
We come to the last obstacle, doubting God - a necessary obstacle on the path to enlightenment. I shall not describe any new proposition here, or even attempt to prove the nature or existence of God. Simply, when doubting an absolute infinite one must study the necessity of existence as the attribute has already been defined. It is a useful moment to elaborate on our definition of God, not only is he substance infinite in his attributes but furthermore infinite in dimensions of infinity. In other words, I mean the absolute infinite of which existence is an attribute, and henceforth is a fundamental substance to existence itself.
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
Preliminaries for Propositions on the Nature of Existence
I would need to argue that that with a lower state of existence than another could not give rise to the latter. With this proposition proved, our argument has full basis.
By definition, that with a greater level of existence has greater essence, and the existence of a substance is defined to be its extent of being in the field of knowledge.
We take as an axiom, that all that exists must exist in itself as a whole or in something else as a part. For that which exists in something else is a form of its singularity. We could redefine our axiom to state that all that exists, exists as a singularity or as form. If one doubts this, conceive of something which does not fulfil such criterion. This cements my proposition that the singularity-form structures are archetypes that we use to understand being.
Now, does the form give rise to the singularity or the singularity to the form. It should make itself clear that this is the same as the initial argument. Suppose that the form gives rise to the singularity.
The form has lesser essence in our system of metaphysics. Suppose the form has a greater essence than the singularity from which it had sprung forth from. Since the singularity had produced infinite forms through its being then the form in question must also in essence be able to produce infinitely many forms and hence act as a singularity. From mathematics it is understood that a subset of a set can contain at most the number of elements of the set. And hence the latter singularity could at most contain the number of elements or the essence of the initial singularity. And two singularities with the same essence are one and the same, for their existence is defined by their inner essence. So the latter singularity, the initial form is able to produce its initial singularity. But this very clearly contradicts our definitions.
By definition, that with a greater level of existence has greater essence, and the existence of a substance is defined to be its extent of being in the field of knowledge.
We take as an axiom, that all that exists must exist in itself as a whole or in something else as a part. For that which exists in something else is a form of its singularity. We could redefine our axiom to state that all that exists, exists as a singularity or as form. If one doubts this, conceive of something which does not fulfil such criterion. This cements my proposition that the singularity-form structures are archetypes that we use to understand being.
Now, does the form give rise to the singularity or the singularity to the form. It should make itself clear that this is the same as the initial argument. Suppose that the form gives rise to the singularity.
The form has lesser essence in our system of metaphysics. Suppose the form has a greater essence than the singularity from which it had sprung forth from. Since the singularity had produced infinite forms through its being then the form in question must also in essence be able to produce infinitely many forms and hence act as a singularity. From mathematics it is understood that a subset of a set can contain at most the number of elements of the set. And hence the latter singularity could at most contain the number of elements or the essence of the initial singularity. And two singularities with the same essence are one and the same, for their existence is defined by their inner essence. So the latter singularity, the initial form is able to produce its initial singularity. But this very clearly contradicts our definitions.
On the Nature of Parts and their Whole
It has occurred to me that the relevance of the part is defined by the whole. To make this more clear take, say, the set of real numbers. This must be an uncountable infinite and thus contains the essence of infinity and its attributes. To make this subject clearer proceed to the following example.
Let us say that there exists a person who has no prior knowledge of circles, but encounters a circle segment.
But can the segment lead to the circle, how could the part lead to the whole? The part of the circle is defined as such through the very being of the circle itself. So clearly our example is preposterous we could not call a segment a 'circle segment' unless we had clear knowledge of what a circle was. So the knowledge of the segment of a circle is a part of the its respective whole, complete knowledge of the circle itself.
Coming back to the matter at hand, could numbers being a part of infinity lead to infinity? Would it not be infinity which necessarily dictates the being of numbers by a similar argument; For the numerical infinity must encompass all possible numbers in its being, and we have shown that the substance of a higher level of existence, that is the singularity, gives rise to its form respective forms. We should note that from our definitions it is clear that infinity is a singularity.
It is a surprising result to conclude that numbers cannot exist independent of infinity, and hence infinity necessarily exists for numbers do also exist. This is a paradigm shift in our traditional views on metaphysics, moving away from insistence of analytic construction from the lesser to the greater, but arguing for the greater giving rise to the lesser on its own accord. This now in turn opens up an important analysis into that 'analytic construction'. Clearly it is the work of the human mind, and so some innate epistemological structure must exist within the mind.
Concluding Remarks
To the unlearned mind which insists upon materialism or empiricism, this may seem very surprising as infinity is not a material construct, nor a concept which could be understood by such means. Do not treat this as a formal argument, although I believe there to be great truth in it. In fact I would argue that formalism is a deceptive mode of inquiry, the essence of argument must be in sound logic, but all logic fundamentally reduces to the naive archetypes of intuition which are in built in the human mind. I believe that these fundamental intuitions are represented clearly in my arguments, and that the reader through their own discourse could arrive at similar conclusions, and at the very least I encourage each person to use this method of inquiry to uncover their own understanding and knowledge.
Let us say that there exists a person who has no prior knowledge of circles, but encounters a circle segment.
But can the segment lead to the circle, how could the part lead to the whole? The part of the circle is defined as such through the very being of the circle itself. So clearly our example is preposterous we could not call a segment a 'circle segment' unless we had clear knowledge of what a circle was. So the knowledge of the segment of a circle is a part of the its respective whole, complete knowledge of the circle itself.
Coming back to the matter at hand, could numbers being a part of infinity lead to infinity? Would it not be infinity which necessarily dictates the being of numbers by a similar argument; For the numerical infinity must encompass all possible numbers in its being, and we have shown that the substance of a higher level of existence, that is the singularity, gives rise to its form respective forms. We should note that from our definitions it is clear that infinity is a singularity.
It is a surprising result to conclude that numbers cannot exist independent of infinity, and hence infinity necessarily exists for numbers do also exist. This is a paradigm shift in our traditional views on metaphysics, moving away from insistence of analytic construction from the lesser to the greater, but arguing for the greater giving rise to the lesser on its own accord. This now in turn opens up an important analysis into that 'analytic construction'. Clearly it is the work of the human mind, and so some innate epistemological structure must exist within the mind.
Concluding Remarks
To the unlearned mind which insists upon materialism or empiricism, this may seem very surprising as infinity is not a material construct, nor a concept which could be understood by such means. Do not treat this as a formal argument, although I believe there to be great truth in it. In fact I would argue that formalism is a deceptive mode of inquiry, the essence of argument must be in sound logic, but all logic fundamentally reduces to the naive archetypes of intuition which are in built in the human mind. I believe that these fundamental intuitions are represented clearly in my arguments, and that the reader through their own discourse could arrive at similar conclusions, and at the very least I encourage each person to use this method of inquiry to uncover their own understanding and knowledge.
Monday, 7 January 2013
On the States of Existence Regarding Knowledge
This proceeding may not take a systematic fashion which I concede, but all gaps in time will be eradicated as the thirst of the mind is quenched at the will of the beholder. I shall speak of how some substance could differ in its state of existence by recollecting a philosophical excerpt of mine.
That which gives rise to less knowledge than other is of a lower state of existence. Such an example can be of space and body. We must use a mathematical setting to allow for a sufficient level of abstraction to treat this metaphysical discussion. A mathematical space is a structure which defines its elements into being endowed with a certain structure. So our mathematical conception of physical space clearly gives rise to the notion of bodies inside them. But from the notion of the body how could we come to the mathematical abstraction without already having it in mind?
I will come to prove that the 'existence' of some substance is contained in the essence in due course. This will require a further investigation into the idea of existence. We can now turn our attention to the matter at hand. Since the singularity of the form must give rise to infinitely many forms varying in their manner of actualisation, we could say that the essence is contained in the singularity itself.
So we have shown that the states of existence regarding knowledge is equivalent to an examination of the essences of substances, and since the singularity contains the essence of its forms the singularity occupies a higher level of existence.
That which gives rise to less knowledge than other is of a lower state of existence. Such an example can be of space and body. We must use a mathematical setting to allow for a sufficient level of abstraction to treat this metaphysical discussion. A mathematical space is a structure which defines its elements into being endowed with a certain structure. So our mathematical conception of physical space clearly gives rise to the notion of bodies inside them. But from the notion of the body how could we come to the mathematical abstraction without already having it in mind?
I will come to prove that the 'existence' of some substance is contained in the essence in due course. This will require a further investigation into the idea of existence. We can now turn our attention to the matter at hand. Since the singularity of the form must give rise to infinitely many forms varying in their manner of actualisation, we could say that the essence is contained in the singularity itself.
So we have shown that the states of existence regarding knowledge is equivalent to an examination of the essences of substances, and since the singularity contains the essence of its forms the singularity occupies a higher level of existence.
On the Necessity of a Substance
I shall prove that the existence of a substance is necessary, as we cannot define something to be, yet provide no reason for doing so.
By substance I mean that which exists in and of itself, and hence it is conceived through itself and not through anything else.
We argue for such, because we would not know of anything if it were not through this substance, and hence nothing would exist to our minds. We can say something exists, however reductionist the attitude - with absolute certainty. And thus a substance exists.
Note that I do not make mention of what this substance is, if it is singular or plural, and what its attribute would be. I would leave this to the reader to question for the time being, as I will be returning to this subject in depth.
A necessary question must be asked: what exists of the essence of the substance apart from the essence itself? If the essence is what we defined to be the attribute then clearly the two are equal. And what exists of substance aside from what the intellect perceives?
A thought experiment we can use is to think of a substance with no properties, while there is an important metaphysical distinction between properties and attributes some materialization of abstract thought can aid us in this setting. So I challenge the reader to think of a substance with no attribute (which he/she can take to be the properties for the purpose of this argument). This is not possible, so the attribute is the sole essence and existence of a substance.
We can then tackle the case of the immaterial substances. If they are immaterial then they must be mental, in that they are perceived by the intellect but have no concrete existence in the material world. Clearly in this case the attribute is the essence.
I present my view that the attribute is contained as knowledge. This is to say that the fundamental essence of substance is in what the mind conceives it to be. I should hope to develop this viewpoint further in the future.
By substance I mean that which exists in and of itself, and hence it is conceived through itself and not through anything else.
We argue for such, because we would not know of anything if it were not through this substance, and hence nothing would exist to our minds. We can say something exists, however reductionist the attitude - with absolute certainty. And thus a substance exists.
Note that I do not make mention of what this substance is, if it is singular or plural, and what its attribute would be. I would leave this to the reader to question for the time being, as I will be returning to this subject in depth.
A necessary question must be asked: what exists of the essence of the substance apart from the essence itself? If the essence is what we defined to be the attribute then clearly the two are equal. And what exists of substance aside from what the intellect perceives?
A thought experiment we can use is to think of a substance with no properties, while there is an important metaphysical distinction between properties and attributes some materialization of abstract thought can aid us in this setting. So I challenge the reader to think of a substance with no attribute (which he/she can take to be the properties for the purpose of this argument). This is not possible, so the attribute is the sole essence and existence of a substance.
We can then tackle the case of the immaterial substances. If they are immaterial then they must be mental, in that they are perceived by the intellect but have no concrete existence in the material world. Clearly in this case the attribute is the essence.
I present my view that the attribute is contained as knowledge. This is to say that the fundamental essence of substance is in what the mind conceives it to be. I should hope to develop this viewpoint further in the future.
Basic Definitions
A Substance, is some element of existence which the intellect can necessary come to know of in its totality.
By Singularity, I mean the infinitely generalized state of being, from which infinite forms or particular versions may spring.
By Form, I mean the constituent elements of singularity, the sum totality of which result in its realisation.
Conception is the act of abstracting a form to singularity through becoming aware of the higher singularity.
Perception is the act of becoming aware of a form with respect to its singularity. This does not require preconception of the singularity but simply some knowledge of its existence, i.e. a 'perception' (an incomplete conception).
The Will surmises the ontological necessity of form towards the existence of singularity. Singularity is ontologically prior to form, to speak of a singularity is to necessitate the totality of its forms, and so we introduce a metaphysical construct in saying that singularity has will towards its forms.
The dual notion of the Will is Striving. As forms exist only by virtue of their parent singularity we can say that forms strive towards their singularity, that the existence of the form in turn necessitates its higher singularity.
By Singularity, I mean the infinitely generalized state of being, from which infinite forms or particular versions may spring.
By Form, I mean the constituent elements of singularity, the sum totality of which result in its realisation.
Conception is the act of abstracting a form to singularity through becoming aware of the higher singularity.
Perception is the act of becoming aware of a form with respect to its singularity. This does not require preconception of the singularity but simply some knowledge of its existence, i.e. a 'perception' (an incomplete conception).
The Will surmises the ontological necessity of form towards the existence of singularity. Singularity is ontologically prior to form, to speak of a singularity is to necessitate the totality of its forms, and so we introduce a metaphysical construct in saying that singularity has will towards its forms.
The dual notion of the Will is Striving. As forms exist only by virtue of their parent singularity we can say that forms strive towards their singularity, that the existence of the form in turn necessitates its higher singularity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)