I need two votes, one for agreeing and one for not understanding. But I think there's an unusual amount of material here worth thinking about and ruminating on. Better you had presented these in thirteen threads. Please consider doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To build off of this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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






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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

(A⇄B)Z ← (C⇄D)Y

((A⇄B)Z ⇄ (C⇄D)Y)M

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



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

(A→A)B


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

(A→A→A)C

((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D

((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E


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

(A→A→A→A)D

((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F

((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C → (A→A→A→A)D)I

((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F


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

((A→A)B → (A→A)B→ (A→A)B)F

((A→A→A)C → (A→A→A)C)F


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

(A→A→A)C

((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D

((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E



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



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


(A→A→A)C
⇅
((A→A)B → (A→A→A)C)E
F

⇅ = A20

((A→A)B → (A→A)B)D

⇅ L

(D ⇄ D)H



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

A12 → A20

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

While being a whole in itself.

(A12 ⇄ A20)B

⥁(A12,A20,A(x))Cx


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Inversely...Continue




- Measurement as Projection of the Self

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

In a separate respect


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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







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

Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover...
The simultaneity polydynamics of the movement (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...)
Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability...
unidimensional variability = live-beings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******* extend

5) All Axioms are Infinite and Finite

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


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