• eodnhoj7
    45
    Generally a dualistic understanding of the self as abstract and transcendent or strictly empirical and material is the foundation for what constitutes the "I".

    Actually due to the fallacy of equivocation we are not limited to just two epitemological aspects of the self, with this further being premised under a form of modal realism as many possible "selves" effectively only limited by possibility.

    This dualism of the empirical and transcendental (or abstract), while providing the necessary dualism for what constitutes the self is as a dualism and observation of both connection and seperation.

    We may observe the abstract transcendental, through a platonic means, as directed towards the empirical, as premised in an aristotelean perspective, with the dual empirical perspective being directed towards the abstract transcendentaly. As duals, or extremes resulting from a form of opposition we may observe a form of seperatation in one respect with this continual alternation ad-infinitum observed a connection.

    This connection, where the empirical and transcendental are both one and the same, effectively observes the directive of eachother as connected where they are directed through themselves as one another with this multiplicity effectively being an approximation of unity (I probably said that statement a thousand times on this forum already). In these respects as connected, through a negative dimensional limit which in itself lacks direction or any quality whatsoever except through the axioms it connects, we observe a triadic component to the nature of the self.

    This traidic component effectively is limit, observed in the connection and seperation of definitions of the self through opposition premised in the dualism of unity and multiplicity, and in these respects the "self" maintains a third neutral element of "both/and" as a limit with "neither/nor" as an absence of limit.

    Hence this triadic neutrality one again cycles back to a postive and negative understanding of the self as limit and no-limit or a positive and negative neutrality. This neutrality as positive and negative dually exists through a form of replication where we have a "neutral neutral", "postive neutral neutral", "negative neutral neutral".

    1) This aspect of the self as positive neutral neutral can reflect that the self effectively is just a point of unity that exists through a process of self-reflection as a perpetual mirroring which gives the self-structure. This can be argued as "Divine Spark", "Image of Divine Measurement", etc. ( with all these "definitions" being extensions of one another) observed in various philosophies and religions where one exists through a process of self-reflection or intradimensionality as directing oneself through oneself as oneself with this oneself, as premised in this 1 dimensional point as "self-evidence" so to speak. This of course being an extension of "The I Am" and "The All" reflected in a variety of philosophies and religions.

    2) This aspect of the self as negative neutral neutral can reflect that the self is effectively absent of structure as a point of multiplicity that is effectively just "void" or "0 dimensionality" as a means of inversion. This can be argued as "Ego", "False Self", etc. (with all these "definitions" being inversions of one another through perpetual seperation) observed in various philosophies and religions where one exists through a process of relativity as directing oneself towards others and vice versa causing a seperation of identity, as premised in this 0 dimensional point as "self-evidence". This is an inversion of the "The I Am" and "The All" as "self-improvement/empowerment" and "the will to power" expressed in a variety of philosophies and religions.

    3) This aspect of the self as neutral neutral observes the self as a limit conducive to a point of origin, further observed in the intuitive expressions of "originallity" and "genuineness" which exist as definitions of the self in many respects. This nature of the self as effectively a point of origin further expressions the extradimensional nature of the self as a projection through intelligence as a means of defining both the world and oneself. In a third respect this self-direction, and the reciprocal nature of the selfs, gives premise to a form of intadimensionality under a form of alternation or circularity where the self exists as the power to maintain its own structure. In these respects the self effectively exists as a means through limit, with man as means and man as measurer observed not just in various forms of religion and philosophy but an image or replication of divinity as God becomes anthropomorphic in various religions and philosophies as well.

    In these respects, man exists as the synthesis of the abstract purity of unity and the empirical fog of void with the foundation of this these duals in geometric limits.


    The negation of the self through the self observes the negation of the ego through ego where the ruthless qualities of the ego as observed in the coldness of true objectivity effectively cancels itself as the ego observes itself as nothing and ceases to exist hence giving a unity within oneself and the environment around the individual.


    Thoughts?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.