A brief approximation of a salient understanding

Binary

Registered Senior Member
A fraction can never be whole, self-sufficient, for when this takes place it is become nothing. Therefore it is not that the world consists of many wholes, but many manifestations of fractions that on their most base level being equal amount to one, and are in concept one, through this something is obtained from nothing, by being nothing itself. Thus, it is not a whole that is selfsame with one, but that through the existance of fractions the whole is known, but for a fraction to exist the whole can not be absolute in singleness of existance, yet something being sole can not be divided, thereby their twain creating a new total whole, one. One being total of all, the singled image of two dissymmetric manifestations of an existance, yet it itself being both and neither. One is a concept of individuality within a whole, thereby it's being prognosticates the property of diversified mutliples, thus being both the justifer and the justifed through which body is formed. A world that is only limited in complexities of perception by the introduction of finitude by law is infinite in proportion and self infused by division of wholes, yet finitive in the possibilty of the manifestions of their collective ordering and structure.


2 is a potential form of zero. 7 is a potential form of a dynamic link or point of relativity and/or joining. 13 is a potential form of a complexed whole.

Inifity is a betokened perceptional property of a root complex, who's existance(infinity's) is a manifestation of the unnegotiable absoluteness of law.

You might want to ponder the sentence below first. Once you are comfortable with the depth of your comprehension of it, you may find it a lot easier discern the underlined principles presented in the afore text.

The words in our world are not sounds nor symbols, for these are merely references to the patterns and existances of which they are comprised.

Simplistic, isn't it? :)
 
RE:Binary

The words in our world are not sounds nor symbols, for these are merely references to the patterns and existances of which they are comprised.

Well seems to me a descriptin of a negative identification system which Derrida describes in his theory of deconstruction (on language):

summary: there is no positive connection betweer the "world" and words which describe it. mat cat rat are words which have nothing to do with "cats" "mats" "rats" in the positive sense. There is nothing catty in the world "cat" and in diferent languages the animal cat has different names (there is no connection between the word cat and cattiness as a quality). The meaning of word cat depens totaly on the fact that it differs from mat rat etc. The negative identification requires the system of language to be finite. ( if you have 3 person (finite number) you can identify them positively 1 is tall, 2 is small, third is middle if you say I mean not the tall and not the small you mean the middle) Language contains finate number of signs which get their meaning from what they are not but the system itself (the whole)depends on the letters and words (fractions) to be able to exist. Therefore the whole of languge is meaningful regardless to its detachement (no possitive connection) from what it describes. (Does this apply to maths to? is 1+1 = 2 because it is not 0, 3,4,5 etc?)

Now, I don't know, if you mean such system in your fraction/whole thesis, it is pretty hard to imagine such system.
 
I wasn't speaking of reference languages, although I am curious as to relevance of this "theory of deconstruction ". Are there any good links for it online. Although it's not a thesist, from what I gather so far the mechanics you refer to seem asthough they might be similair.
 
A fraction can never be whole, self-sufficient, for when this takes place it is become nothing.
Why? If a fraction can be divided... I chop a piece of wood, now there are two perfectly whole self sufficient pieces of wood.

Therefore it is not that the world consists of many wholes, but many manifestations of fractions that on their most base level being equal amount to one, and are in concept one, through this something is obtained from nothing, by being nothing itself.
Are we talking about real life objects here or mathematical concepts? How is this "one" obtained from nothing?

Thus, it is not a whole that is selfsame with one, but that through the existance of fractions the whole is known, but for a fraction to exist the whole can not be absolute in singleness of existance
So not only the whole exists, but also the parts. Cheer cheer!

yet something being sole can not be divided, thereby their twain creating a new total whole, one. One being total of all, the singled image of two dissymmetric manifestations of an existance, yet it itself being both and neither.
This just makes no sense at all to me.

One is a concept of individuality within a whole, thereby it's being prognosticates the property of diversified mutliples, thus being both the justifer and the justifed through which body is formed.
So, basically, you are saying it takes more than one building block to built something which contains more than one building block. Gee.

A world that is only limited in complexities of perception by the introduction of finitude by law is infinite in proportion and self infused by division of wholes, yet finitive in the possibilty of the manifestions of their collective ordering and structure.
Please, elaborate on this self infusing by division of wholes mechanism... what makes wholes divide?

2 is a potential form of zero. 7 is a potential form of a dynamic link or point of relativity and/or joining. 13 is a potential form of a complexed whole.
What is a dynamic link is this context?


You might want to ponder the sentence below first. Once you are comfortable with the depth of your comprehension of it, you may find it a lot easier discern the underlined principles presented in the afore text.

The words in our world are not sounds nor symbols, for these are merely references to the patterns and existances of which they are comprised.
If you are referring to a system where you would place a symbol as an entity which can not be divided and a word as a combination of symbols, then yes you've made a lengthy post written in archaic english to explain what most of us realized in primary school.
 
For Binary

A fraction can never be whole, self-sufficient, for when this takes place it is become nothing.

I would suggest that you do a little research on holograms before you etch the above line in stone.....
 
A followup for Binary

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html
 
The material you referenced was interesting. It reminded me of a few things. Although alone, it's not very relevant to the quoted sentence, "A fraction can never be whole, self-sufficient, for when this takes place it is become nothing." it is quite supportive of the over all understanding.
 
Back
Top