Wholeness Versus All
rating: 0+x

Wholeness versus all (or 2 types of reversals), because

"wholeness of a thing is the thing together with its non-existences, but all is just that thing, of which what may be out (i.e. be not itself and also not in itself) is assumed to be not existing".

This definition of whole differ from that of all when when replacing "the preposition in" for "the preposition with",

such that the former preposition would be defined by the later preposition. in short to be in means to be with the container, such that the access and/or the existence of the one is depended on the container. so i calmed there is some thing out of being out or in some thing, that is to be the thing.

while replacing it with a much more efficient and natural concept for organizing or understanding "things".


For understanding (how we implement) what is to be belong, it is suggested that:

1. Wholeness as a reflection of the order of satisfactory:
For any thing, its wholeness is itself together with its nonexistences being whatever it is not. That being said, the next order of its wholeness is the wholeness of its wholeness, which is its wholeness together with the nonexistences of its wholeness. Hence only itself together with whatever it is not is only the first order of its wholeness, and only this order can keep the distinction between what is included and what is excluded.

2. All as a reflection of the order of establishing confinement:
The concept of the thing we name all, is the one with which we are able to distinguish between what can held by inclusion as the rest is held by exclusion.

3. Prior to have, to use and/or to constitute the concept of the thing we name all, we distinguish between two types of nonexistences, one is of the referential nonexistences and the other is of the nonreferential nonexistences, where each of the nonexistences is attributed only to one existence.

4. Referential nonexistence is attributed to one of the existences in the thing we name and includes (all) referable existences other than the attributed one, such that the thing we name all is the first order of the wholeness of each such existences or such nonexistences, such that such all then is the frame of possibilities.

5. Non-referential nonexistence is attributed to of the thing we name all and includes (all) referable existences other than the attributed one, such that all is the first order of the wholeness of each such existences or nonexistences, each of which is in the frame of possibilities.

ones and not referential:

each of which type of nonexistences is attributed to one existence, but only one of which

One type of each which nonexistences

is referable (as being attributed to each of the existences in all)

One type of each which nonexistences is referable (as being attributed to each of the existences in all) and includes (all) referable existences other than the attributed one, such that all is the first order of the wholeness of each such existences or nonexistences, each of which is in the frame of possibilities.

Other type of each which nonexistences is not referable (but still is attributed to the thing we name all) and does not include other referable existences, such that …

1. For any thing, its wholeness is itself together with its nonexistences , that is its wholeness is itself with whatever it is not. That being said, the wholeness of its wholeness is its wholeness together with the nonexistences of its wholeness, hence only the first order of its wholeness, is only itself together with whatever it is not and only the first order of its wholeness can keep the distinction between what is included and what is excluded.

~~namzezam at 24/01/07~~

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License