• eodnhoj7
    267
    1) All Meaning Exists As Both Positive and Negative Values and is Inherently Neutral.

    All meaning is subject to the context in which it exists; hence the relation of both context and the context of that context exists as meaning itself.

    The previous statement is universal and has no context except as itself, hence is intradimensionally directed; therefore the prior statement is negated while existing as true if and only if it continually expands, hence is extra dimensionally directed.

    From this statement all meaning maintains simultaneously positive and negative values, as both existing and lacking in existence; contradiction as a deficiency in reasoning is a statement of incompletion, hence relation, and does not exist on its own terms. Structure through reason is meaning with philosophy existing as the means of reasoning with knowledge as order through structure.




    What we understand of meaning effectively is one of context where one context is both composed of and composing further contexts. The nature of context is synonymous to a nature of framework or a dimension as a set of limits. The nature of context existing through context observes a progressive nature to context leading to the further definitions of "framework", "dimension", etc. with these definitions maintaining the definitions of "context, "framework", "dimension", etc. through a form of self direction.

    All context existing through context observes context as progressively expanding past it origins, with the nature of context itself progressing through projective, or extradimensional, direction where context projected past itself observes context specifically as direction. This extradimensional nature of context observes context as existing as a positive reality through itself where the projective nature of the context inevitably observes extradimensionally as a function of meaning.

    This meaning through projection, or extradimensionality, exists dually as self negating as a negative statement where the perceived units of context and context effectively is absent of any directive quality except past itself, hence is deficient in self direction necessary for maintenance. In simpler terms extradimensionality has dual positive and negative qualities.

    All context existing through context observes context effectively existing through itself with the nature of context itself being maintained through self-directed, or intradimensional, direction where the context directed to context observes context specifically as direction. This intradimensional nature of context observes context as existing as a positive reality in itself where the self-directed nature of the context inevitably observes intradimensionality as a form of meaning.

    This meaning through self-direction, or intradimensionality, exist dually as self negating as a negative statement where the percieved unity of context through context as context effectively is absent of any direction except towards itself, hence is deficient in progressive expansion necessary for definition. In simpler terms intradimensionally has dual positive and negative qualities.

    This nature of positive and negative as extending from this dualism observes positive and negative as existence and deficiency in existence where existence occurs through direction and movement.

    The respective absence of direction in these duals observes an inherent absence of existence in one manner or another. This is considering while context may exist through context as context, context effectively is undefined when absent of any direction. This deficiency in structure is the root of all contradiction with contradiction being incompletion as the opposition of completion.

    ******

    What we understand of contradiction is primarily a deficiency in structure. We observe something and this observation is not proportional in one degree or another as proportionality is determined by symmetry with symmetry resulting in balance.

    Take for example the simple math problem 2 + 2 = 5

    By all accounts this qualifies as a contradiction. The problem occurs with what forms the contradiction itself. "2", "+", "2", "=" and "5" are all axioms in themselves and true on their own account. The structuring of these axioms results in a disproportionality that inherently leads to a deficiency in "structure".

    In this respect all contradictions fundamentally are a deficiency in structure and not a thing in themselves. This deficiency in structure can be purely:

    1) subjective (as a person claims it is contradictory because it is not proportional to the axioms they observe)

    2) objective (2 + 2 will always equal 4 therefore it cannot equal 5)

    As all contradiction is strictly deficiency in axiomatic structure, the nature of contradiction is neutralized through structural propagation.


    The continual propagation of structure, which may appear random, does not imply contradiction. Structures which may appear contradictory, such as 2 + 2 = 5, may not always contradict if they continually reflect through an observer as a unifying median. To further this example:

    2 + 2 = 5


    2 + 2 ≠ 5


    2z + 2z = 5 ↔ z = 1.25


    2x + 2y = 5 ↔ {x = |1...0| y = |1.5…2.5|} ∨ { x = |1.5…2.5| y = |1...0|} with x≜y


    ad infinitum; therefore:

    2 + 2 = 5 ↔ (2 + 2 = 5) = -□

    In this respect all axioms maintain a degree of contradiction where they lack symmetry or balance. However observing the contradiction as a contradiction is a simultaneously solution.

    In this respect all axioms maintain a duality of truth and falsity as contradiction exists where definition is deficient.


    This nature of meaning as positive being through structure as reason and negative being through absense of structure as contradiction observes meaning itself as both being and negative being with being effectively existing through its directive qualities that give rise to context as structure; hence reason.

    This positive and negative nature of intradimensionality further mirrors through its opposing dual of extradimensionality.

    Intradimensionality is positive as self-maintaining and Extradimensionality is negative as progressing past its origins effectively being without self-maintaining structure.

    Extradimensionality is positive as continually defining through a progress of definition and Intradimensionality is negative as self-maintaining as no progressive or further definition occurs which maintains definition.

    Intradimensional direction of context and Extradimensional direction of context effectively exist as duals which simultaneously rotate through eachother through a direction of one into another as necessary for meaning as meaning must be simultaneously maintain itself through self-direction and progressive direction past itself. In these respects the respective positive and negative values, which give premise to the variation of this dualism (as Intradimensional and Extradimensionality are both positive and negative relative to their positions at the same time in different respects).

    The value of positive and negative, as being and deficiency in being, effectively gives form to meaning as existence with existence occuring through a directive quality synonymous to movement where meaning exists as movement or even "use" in the terms of Wittgenstein. Structure, through context exists as a directive process with this process existing through further directive processes cycling back as structure itself in one respect and further directive processes in another.

    Meaning exists through consistency and change as a center point from which both extend and in these respects meaning is a fundamental neutral value where reasoning as a form of structure is an act of definition by observing meaning and no-meaning. This can be further observed where Positive, Negative and Neutral are foundations of definition with all defintion being meaning as use where what is in use is effectively moving and directed.




    1) What is positive exists.

    2) What is negative is a deficiency within existence and not a thing in itself.

    3) A positive which cannot be observe without a negative, observes the limits of the positive as having an existence through grades as it maintains a deficiency. This in turn observe a positive neutrality as "both positive and negative"; hence neutrality is observed gradation being a thing in itself hence positive.

    4) A negative which cannot be observed without a positive, observes the positive as having an either/or condition in which the positive exists either as one thing or another as a thing in itself. This in turn observes a negative neutrality as "either positive or negative" (existing fully or in grades).

    5) All neutrality as the foundation of positive and negative values effectively maintains these positive and negative values while directing towards them as well. So where positive and negative lead to neutrality, neutrality as positive or negative leads back to positive and negative while effectively extending past them.

    6) All meaning exists through neutrality as a summation of positive and negative values with neutrality observing value as a form of mediation in itself as it gives structure by acting as a directive quality. A value is a means of direction.

    7) All meaning as both intradimensional and extradimensional direction, fundamentally being neutral observes mean as interdimensional where neutrality is effectively between intradimensional and extradimensionality effectively as both synonymous to an expanding form of intradimensionality with expansion being intradimensionally direct. Under these terms, direct and meaning exists strictly "as is" with meaning as use, and use as existence, observing all existence as meaningful.
  • creativesoul
    8.3k
    1) All Meaning Exists As Both Positive and Negative Valueseodnhoj7

    If and only if positive and negative values are not existentially dependent upon language.
  • eodnhoj7
    267


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

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

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

    The definitive properties of language in itself observes language as not just universal to all elements of being regardless of there state or degree of comsciousness, but effectively presents itself as a median in itself. This property of "meaning" within language in turn extends to all of aspects of meaning necessitating a degree of oneness with them.
  • creativesoul
    8.3k
    You're trying to pack too much into language...

    Meaning is prior to language. There are no negative/positive values prior to language. Those require a standard by which to determine what is positive and what is negative.
  • eodnhoj7
    267
    If meaning is prior to language and you are using language as a means to giving direction to this premise, how is language not meaningful?
  • creativesoul
    8.3k
    If meaning is prior to language and you are using language as a means to giving direction to this premise, how is language not meaningful?eodnhoj7

    I do not understand the relevance of this question. All language is meaningful.
  • eodnhoj7
    267


    If all language is meaningful, and all reality is composed of medians in the respect structure exists as an extension of a center, is language connected to reality as both exist through a point of center? Can language and reality be viewed as one and the same, because of this, leading to a premise of one does not necessarily presuppose the other?
  • eodnhoj7
    267
    And what is language but a form of meaning through use, to loosely reference Wittgenstein, considering it is the use of language which gives meaning to life as it effectively exists as a limit through which we not just structure our own perceptions and those of the group, but effectively structure the environment through which the individual or group exists?

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

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

    The definitive properties of language in itself observes language as not just universal to all elements of being regardless of there state or degree of comsciousness, but effectively presents itself as a median in itself. This property of "meaning" within language in turn extends to all of aspects of meaning necessitating a degree of oneness with them.
    eodnhoj7
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment