The Phenomenology of time

Clocks don’t tell the time, they simply mark specific points of order. The planets rotate, summer loses her coat, winter arrives like clockwork, and the swallow relocates itself to paradise, but the future as we experience it, (by that I mean our future in respect to “time”) is not something that is actually moving forward. That’s because time doesn’t exist at all. Basically time is not a factor of existence in respect to it being something that has any real substance. It is not a part of the thing in itself. Time is merely a second order illusion created around the fixed foundation of existence and the constant modification of its parts.

This is my bone of contention and because my claim is structured around an axiomatic construct that runs along the a priori structures of thought, the foundation that supports my claim cannot be deconstructed. So let intuition be your guide and not the words I use.

The future is not something which “exists” now as zero and then comes into existence a moment later as substance and surprise’s us. The fact is the future cannot exist tomorrow without today’s parts, so things, apart from temporary perceptions just are. The “future” is merely an idealized construct, created in a reflective state of mind, which is structured around the various concepts of thought and all the known variables simultaneously moving.

To think is to be in a conceptual state. I intuit the world along the various categories and their structures, therefore I am. The world that we experience, or rather intuit everyday, is effectively a world in a constant transcendental state of flux, constantly modifying and re-modifying itself by degree within and around a fixed foundation of order. For all intents and purposes I shall call this fixed order X. It’s on the basis of X that I intend to establish that there is no such thing as time and that the past is based around the illusion that the next moment is something new, when in facts it’s just Y, a temporary form of X, modifying by degree around X and zero.

All of life’s vagaries are of one melting pot and since each one is contingent on a successive movement as well as a part, their order can be conceived of in our psyches.

The key to understanding time lays in the way our mind structures itself around this subsistent reality that we all share and experience. Incidentally, I believe our own internal structures to be identical to the internal structures of nature, given that we are constituted by these structures, and so this is why we can intuit a priori, the various trails of life back down along the successive footsteps of order.

To know our true place in this universe, the first order of the day must be in discerning how our minds are structured a priori to look at the world of experience. Remember, man is only a second condition of a first order. We are Y. All temporary forms are Y. Y is constituted by X, so Y is of X. Y is what X dose. The fact is that time as we understand and perceive it, only has relevance in temporary frames, meaning that time it-self, by definition, is not something that exists outside a vacuum.
Given that the first order of existence, X, is a constant, time by definition dose not exist at all. It can’t. We simply cannot measure time against a constant. Time is not something that can be picked up and put in a bottle. It’s a non-entity, just like death is a non-entity. Moreover, both of these concepts are predicated on “zero” in that without zero, they cannot be measured.

People tend to think of the whole, or X, in terms of infinity plus one, but this is an incorrect way of looking at things. X can be either measured as one whole, or aggregated. Plus one would mean that there were two at the very least, but based on our a priori understanding of numbers, this is not the case at all.

To flip the paradigm one has only to “add” zero to the frame. Zero creates a vacuum and this allows us to aggregate one from the whole, or two, three, four, five, add infinitum, but always, and only within the boundaries of a vacuum. Without a vacuum, one more, plus one more, plus one more, cannot be measured, so the correct measurement again, is one. One is the only constant, therefore X is.

We cannot conceive of X as not being there at all. This is how the parts conclude in axiomatic frameworks. When the world of experience, which is constructed around temporary frameworks, is measured, it’s always measured against its parts, which are an aggregate of the whole. Nothing can be measured without its parts. Incidentally, at a sub-atomic level the mind breaks down simply because we lose all the points of geometry, and so the map becomes whole again.

Our minds can only deduce what is, or what might be, from the page that’s laid out in front on them. Effectively we can only be aware of what is, how it has come to pass and how things based around given fixtures, might transpire around it. In respect to real existence, we are not the action we are an after effect of it, so we can only be cognizant of what already is. All outcomes are established through induction, and concluded around the given categories of reality and their parts.
Given that our a priori state is a reflective one, the ego cannot technically look forward. We are always after the first moment, therefore we reflect. X is what X is. X has real existence. The future is borne on X, not on Y. This is why we are naturally in a reflective state. All epistemic knowledge is based around what X is and what X dose. All knowledge of Y is contingent on X. Y is a succession of the last step so we reflect. The future is from the first step to the last, not from the last step to nowhere.

We are all subjected to the same objective. How we are ontologically constituted is how we are. Again, Y is what X dose. Everything that we experience in this reality subsists as a temporary form of one sort or another. Y is contingent on X so Y subsists. Water, fruit, fish, iron, stars, man, and so on, they all subsist as temporary forms. Like I said, we are not the first cause. We are a second order extension of its mechanics, thus we subsist. Only the thing in itself, X, or what Kant called the noumenon, has any real existence.

All subsistent forms “exist’ as temporary structures. Y is obviously fueled and made from whatever X is, so Y’s substance exists. We are a kind of secondary existence, if you like. We are a form that has grown from a pool of possibilities we can’t as yet fathom. All structure as we understand and perceive it, relies on a there being a fixed foundation to support it. For Y to subsist it needs a foundation, and since we are clearly not the first cause, we are relying on a constant of sorts. As long as we operate around the axioms of intuition, and we don’t walk blindly off track into the illusory fields of existentialism, then X for all intents and purposes, just is. Y is governed by a constant.

Given that the world of experience is predicated upon a constant, time by definition doesn’t exist at all. If nothing can be added then nothing is moving forward, therefore what we experience and believe to be changing is just the perception of temporary forms moving against a fixed background by degree. Infinity and zero are idol cogs in respect to time actually being something that exists, in that these concepts only have relevance in respect to temporary structures.

Take for example a car driving along a straight road. If we time the car from the moment it leaves position A and arrives at position B one hour later, has the car driven one hour into the future or has it driven one hour back into the past? Both perspectives are valid if we measure time as something, which is moving forward. But this is only a vacuum measurement based around a temporary structure. However, the car itself, the parts that is that make up the car, haven’t gone into the future or back into the past. Its substance has simply remained in the moment. X remains constant. All that has changed is the relative positions of Y in the ultimate moment.

All the elements exist at all times and are being used at all times, albeit in different forms. Tomorrows house, or tomorrow’s world, is nothing more than a re-modification of today’s parts, meaning that the parts that make up the so-called future are always in the present moment. Tomorrows tree is in today’s seed. Tomorrows seed is today’s apple bud transpiring. The chicken and the egg arrived together.

Anyhow, just to reiterate. Given that the so-called “future” is simply an outcome of the moment that has gone before it, and that each moment is contingent of its parts and their successive movements around a constant order, it stands to reason that the future is only a re-modification of the present parts. Thus if the parts are always present, the future is not somewhere we can go. X is a constant Y has to sit with. Y can only come across what X already is in the ultimate fixed moment. Time my friends is clearly an illusion. I am not ahead of my time I am simply with the moment. In the nicest way possible, you catch up.

You're either with the grain or you're against us

‘The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.’ Thomas Paine.

I hold no punches, why should I? Eeeny, meany, miny, mo……… for a start, women are still being raped. Sisters have been spat-down by men of small mind, for centuries now, no two billion ways about it. My neighbour’s army raped my other neighbour’s wife. How sad, how small, how lost are we? How inept, how inane how violently primitive.
How many doors out are we do you think? Warm, getting warmer, getting warmer, getting colder, getting colder, getting warmer, getting warmer; going nowhere really. A door here, a door there, here a door, there a door, every where you look doors, but where’s the key?

Isn’t that the big question? Where is the magic universal key that opens a door in every heart? That’s the ball I’m dropping in the court this time. How does one get in down there, in here, inside the mind, down there, wherever down there inside the mind, is, and know it for its quarter? How can one subjectively know ones self in relation to everything and everyone else as an equal measure? How does one ‘wake the fuck up’ as they say, basically?

What people need in my opinion is a hard dose of reality proper. The following is just that and if you can swallow it without the proverbial spoon full of sugar; well great is where I’ll leave that one hanging in you.

This may come as a big surprise to most, but you know the cat was never actually in a bag. The wool has been simply pulled black over your eye’s, that’s all. For centuries blind fools have been walking blind fools over cliffs into big black bottomless holes for reasons so far removed from our natural song, it’s hard to fathom. And yet nobody ever wants to believe that the picture is that simple, when in all ‘axiomatic’ actuality, it is.

To think that so many of us over the centuries have oppressed our own Sisters and Brothers, under the absolute flag of ignorance is beyond me. There’s no other word for it in the whole universal idiom that describes it better than puny.
Ignorance is not a different reality. Ignorance is merely a negation of what is. A negation of what exists subjectively inside us. Behind our disarray every single dot of whatever we naturally are, whatever we poetically are, whatever we politically are, is technically growing from the blossom of one root, irrespective of what you might be thinking in difference.

In essence man can only come across what man is already by definition of logic. Playing God on the blind helps no one. Meaning, don’t throw in your hand until you can see the flop side. The answers really are all right there in front of us. All one has to do to see them, is ask their own person this, what am I, without the questions?

You’ll find the answers by trusting what you see and feel in your own heart. It’s as simple as looking for the haystack on the needle. There is no in between the middle, just around the corner, over there, somewhere, hiding in a corner. There is just the way things are in us. There is just reality proper.

The thief hooks himself. That’s the way good old Mammy nature spells reality. It’s her song. Our beat is her toe tapping in the universe. I’m just pulling in the net. I’m simply playing with the hand that I’ve been given, face up. A man robs another man we all lose a little bit of what is novel in our lives. As a whole we all lose a little bit of everything. The feast as we all know very well is at one table only.

At the end of the day, and its been a long day I know, every man woman and child on this little speck, out here in the middle of everywhere, over there near that shiny thing, innately understands the same rules. The game is technically written around one evolutionary flop, and who are we to be sailing ignorant in the face of it?

We are what we are because of what the signs say in us. Reason tells us this, and tell me reasonably, what are we without it? Ever colour, every creed, every song that ever meant anything real, right back to Granny Africa tells us we are all one. And yet we remain to this day, for the most part anyhow as a society divided. Why oh why, oh why, oh why, oh why do you think that is? I mean you do think don’t you?

Prima facie one could be forgiven for thinking that we’re just a bunch of violent monkeys hell bent on total destruction, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of things, we are not as divided up on the inside as we have been led to believe on the front. In-fact if you look close enough you can actually see the same metaphysical grain running through everyone’s eyes.
This is why the expression, ‘going against the grain’ carries real weight in all of us. Liberty for example is a subjective view of how things should be in relation to our natural circumstances, and so anything that flies in the face of our inner truth in the outside world, can and should be ruled out as a negative. All anomalies create a resonance of imbalance in our ear.

Slavery as you all know went against the grain. Slavery is an absolute abhorrence of our nature and this is why those of us who carry nobility in our hearts see fit to fight it on all fronts. It goes against Mammy Natures grain dictates. So did Nazism. So dose Catholicism, Capitalism, Monarchism, and a whole load of other unmentionables I wish I could forget also.

Point being, if all of these ideologies that we as people carry, have actually been carried in the face of Mother Nature, then we have no choice but to conclude that they were in fact the direct result of a primitive mindset. Reason dictates this in us. In other words, based on their subjective realities, all the advocates of the above mentioned ideologies were simply talking plain old shit. Shurr aren’t I hanging them right here, right now on Mammy Nature’s branches. Like I said, the thief hooks himself.
Each and every ideology is subject to a subjective perspective of how things are and should be in relation to what we are and need as a people. Thus all the above mentioned have been subjectively misleading, or another great way of saying that is they were wrong. Effectively they have created imbalance for a species that desires absolute equilibrium of mind if it is to enjoy life, liberty and happiness.

There are no inferior people, but there are I’m not afraid to state inferior ideologies. There isn’t an argument in any book anywhere that can challenge me on this reality. Nor is there a ‘supreme’ court in any land that can stand up to the punches I’m throwing down here. Jurisprudence for what its worth is seeded in my word.

My flow is with the grain. In respect to relativity the views that I air here all square up equally in everyone, irrespective of the ‘other’ half’s incorrect positions. Negating the facts doesn’t cancel them out. Incidentally, there is no ‘we’ll agree to differ’ in my book. Fuck all that. Swallow the truth and lets move away from these antiquated paradigms of ‘thought’ once and for all.
Revelation is not a two-way stream. The flip side of the face on every coin merely reveals the soul behind the face of who we really are. In essence we are firemen in all lands, at all times, ready to save babies and risk our own lives if necessary. Revelation! We are doctors and nurses ready to keep the world and our lives ticking over longer. Revelation! Collectively we are scientists, poets, farmers, lovers, sisters, brothers, fathers, mothers, and to top it all off equally, we are Einstein’s. What we are not though is Thatcher shit. Never!

The truth will set you free as the T-shirt says, but without a door to walk through one might as well be wearing a cap that says Queen. Not the band, the ejit on the big shiny chair waving her life away. ‘Bless.’ The truth is that each one of us has to wake up to what we are already inside, and not only that, we have to carry it in the face of all things puny.

As philosophers our job is to see the truth in people and make it known to all, everywhere. Philosophers for me are the gardeners of people in as much as we farm the mind. It could be said that we are the kids who never stop asking questions. It’s our job to root out the causes that harm us and through inductive reasoning, stamp them out.

Despite what I am saying, on the whole I believe in humanity. I believe that as a species we are all inherently good, but this is not to say that the mind cannot be twisted. One has no choice but to call the wood for the trees when they see an injustice, but our true measurement is not in the actions of fools, it is with those who trust their hands to nature.

Cynicism I might add is just an ignorant note of discord. I waste no time on it. It rings nowhere real outside the realms of its own corrupt, short-sited parameters. Beware of some of the sheep in sheep’s clothing, certainly, but remember those who have walked off the beaten track are just the souls we have to bring back to the flock.

At present our beautiful world is in dire trouble. Grass is only greener until you take a long look over the fence at your brother’s garden. In juxtaposition the extremes just meld into a whole of their own, the sheep lost without the shepherd’s, the shepherds lost with the sheep, the snake eating its own tail right down to the bones of a black hole.

The fact is our world is dying. Whether one wants to see it or not, the truth is that men of small mind are still running the show and men and women are still jumping over cliffs into big black bottomless holes after them. Our village has been over run with idiots, and if you and I remain afraid of what we are and know to be true deep down in our own hearts, we will never ever know peace.

Ignorance is anarchism. Read the last line again. Read it again. Read it again. The anarchism of war, the anarchism of deforestation, the anarchism of deceit, murder, genocide, nuclear holocaust, greed, rape, racism, poverty, famine, pollution, exploitation, class politics, ignorance is the anarchism of apes. Enlightenment on the other hand is based on all that we hold to be true and real above that. Enlightenment is all about the seas you sail in with the grain. The pond without the piss is my pool.

The Foundations Of Language

The following is what Karl Popper would probably refer to as “bold scientific conjecture” The foundations for Babel lie in our minds ontological schematics, and all schematics are structured around points of fixed position. We couldn’t follow any map if we didn’t have any points of fixed position to coordinate the right path.

Practically everything we do as a species involves and revolves around fixed positions. Constructing a house involves and revolves around fixed position. Organizing the Olympic Games, or even just something as simple as a wedding, involves and revolves around fixed positions. Using an airport, landing an aerial on Mars, or even typing on my computer at the time of writing, involves and revolves around the same principles. Our spoken language is simply a medium we use to coordinate each other into relative fixed positions.

If we are ever to understand our true place in the world then we’re going to have to take philosophy back out of the realms of “textualism” and look at it in the context of everyday experience, which I aim to do. By applying philosophy in a more praxis manner I hope I can show you how our minds innate language is structured around all internal and external experience. If the mind is to know P, and P is represented as (A, B, C, D) then the mind has only to structure itself around (A, B, C, D) to establish that it knows P.

Science exists in the mind as a tentative universal foundation because the principle positions that carry it exist an a priori, in all of us. We all have the ability to concur with each other on any given situation. 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal concurrence of picture. The moon is in the sky, is a universal concurrence of picture. Science has been established around and upon, a universal concurrence of picture. The foundation for science is in our minds and it is written along our ontological schematics.

Numbers are a universal language because our minds all use the same phenomenological apparatus to establish their structure. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, is a universal structure. 2 + 2 = 4 is a universal structure. The universal foundation that underpins our spoken and written word inheres in the way our minds internal apparatus structures all our languages around fixed points of position relating to internal and external experience. The minds innate ability to establish structure exists an a priori and is contingent on and around its internal and external relation to the world of persons, parts and transcendental fixtures.

Let me first explain what I mean by transcendental fixtures. Anything that has already transpired has by definition already been laid down along the annals of antiquity. For
Example-World War 2 transpired the way it did, one step at a time, one bullet at a time, one speech act at a time, one contract at a time and so on, and so now we can walk our minds, or rather we can transcend them back down along histories fixed positions. That old maxim, “one step at a time” is actually an ontological principle, or law. One step at a time, one calculation at a time, one chess move at a time, and check mate, wouldn’t you know it, Churchill has blood on his hands too.

Each piece of the past can be transcendentally pulled out of the abstract and measured in its own vacuum. We can use our minds “tentacles” if you will, to transcend ourselves up, out and over the fields of history and then we can focus in on any position we choose to. I may have never seen the gas chambers myself but my mind still holds them as a fixed position in space and time.

If something has transpired then by definition it has extension and if there’s extension, it can be measured. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, is one extended to five, so five in this case is the measurement of extension. WW2 has extension. We can select to look at any part of it that we choose. We can select to look at just one person from the past in a vacuum such as Hitler, or our minds can choose to transcend the frame and look at him in relation to the whole picture. Either way, the mind, like I’ve already stated, can transcendentally pull any piece out of the past, (providing of course the evidence is available to establish a factual position) and view each person on their own merit, each individual part on how it played out, or we can simply transcend the whole and take a holistic view of how it all transpired.

The past is technically only an imprint in our minds that is structured around fixed points of principle and set positions, transcendental fixtures. WW2 began in 1939- that’s a fixed position. Murder is wrong- that’s a fixed principle. It’s on these points of principle and set positions that the mind creates structure. All structure builds a picture in the mind. The structuring of anything, lets just say a house, is established internally in the mind before it’s manifested externally through extension. Basically the mind can internally fix all the points of position that make up a house, without ever having to bring the structure itself into existence. In much the same way the mind can establish all the points of position that were the blue print of WW2 and through a transcendental extrapolation of the whole create a coherent picture, even though we technically can’t bring its structure back into existence.

History has to repeat itself. Autumn will repeat itself again next year. When we as people talk about history repeating itself it’s usually in relation to war, or crime, or religious nonsense. If the foundation is 1 + 1 = 3, it will continue on that path until it’s altered. The problems we’re faced with when we say that history keeps repeating itself lies in relation to our place in nature. At the moment we’re simply out of step with our ontological schematics. To stop war repeating itself we merely have to change the artificial principles that carry it.

Hitler doesn’t technically exist anymore. He exists only as an imprint in our minds. He doesn’t actually exist in a book. The words written down in history books are just symbolic documentation in chronological order, of what has already transpired. Words are simply a collection of symbols in set configuration that mark position and so aid us in remembering. Each principle that carried WW2 can be establish in the mind and calculated on its own merit, and so each calculated outcome can be used to structure the mind around the bigger picture. Our minds can structure themselves around any structure already established. If we are to stop History repeating itself in the case of war, we need only structure our minds around the economic structures, racist structures and patriotic structures that create the war and well run from the facts if you wish to.

WW2 transpired the way it did regardless of the words written down in books about it. P happens the way P happens. Everything that happens is laid down along certain phenomenological tracks in the mind and remembering anything about the past involves and revolves around the “jumbling” (if you will) of set imprints in the mind. The mind remembers Hitler and phone numbers in more or less the same way. I will elaborate more on this point later. WW2, like any structure can be broken down into an aggregate of its parts, and so hermeneutically (the science of reading in between the lines) we can read history as a map.

WW2 for example is not just a history of greed and the millions slaughtered in the name of…….. it’s also a history of speech acts. The act of ordering more trains to transport Jews to the gas chambers, involved a speech act, which was carried in an act of intention. Basically what I’m saying is, if we transcendentally pulled each set fixture that revolved around a speech act, up and out of the past, one at a time, and analyzed the positions that each act established, relative to its fundamental positions and frame, one could map every point of principle contained in it.

In every Language the words we use, (which are merely the sounds that we shape phonetically or the symbols that we use in set configurations and write down) are nothing more than the associate sound and symbol patterns that we use to coordinate each others minds into fixed positions on every factual aspect of reality. After all, we’re all searching for our true nature in the universe, are we not? And if we are to ever know our true nature then we’re going to need coordinates. Or how else are we to navigate our way? There can be no structure without coordinates.

In me writing this piece I am simply trying to relay and establish certain positions, which you the reader can relate to in your own mind. I’m not an academic in the academic sense but please endure me. It’s hard to select and write down the right words when one is trying to construct and relay an argument so as to establish certain points of principle in somebody else’s mind. While some points I make may not seem straight forward at first, all the points I have chosen are based in logic so I urge you to stay with it. The finished picture reveals the overall answers. The answers are all contained within the overall description and a transcendental extrapolation of the whole will hopefully allow you to see it.

If one concurs on anything with someone else, it simply means that two minds have established a relative fixed position. Like I said above, the words we speak and write down are simply the associate sound and symbol patterns that are used to relay fixed points of principle from one mind to another in every factual situation. The sailors in the past coordinated their journeys across the seven seas by navigating their position in relation to fixed positions in the stars. This tells us that our minds have the ability to concur on relative positions for relative purposes, in any given situation with each other. The mind basically has the ability to position itself on any fixed point, calculate the parts in relation to it, and then arrive at what will be the most advantageous or most expedient outcome in any situation.

The phenomenological apparatus that we use in our minds to establish and find concurrence of picture with each other is the same apparatus that we use to find and establish fixed position in all fields of study. Whether we’re studying the science of philosophy, mathematics, linguistics, psychology, sociology, and so on, all these fields rely on foundations that rest on fixed points of principle. These points of fixed principle are points that we can navigate our positions by and these points are the foundations of science. That’s why the epistemic positions held in each field are universals. Incidentally, hermeneutics itself, as a field of inquiry can only be understood hermeneutically.

The deconstruction of any argument involves the construction of an opposing argument that revolves around a dialectical approach within the given situation. The dialectic itself revolves around and involves the positioning of fixed principles. For example, if one is to, let’s just say, deconstruct a racist’s argument, one has only to establish certain fixed principles based on points of reference in the factual world if one is to succeed in deconstructing the racist’s argument. If A and B are arguing and B is the racist, A’s argument must revolve around and involve the positioning of B’s mind on natures fixed positions if A is to win the argument. A has to establish that P is A, B, C, D, if B is to change his corrupt views about P. The negation of the facts doesn’t cancel them out.

Whether one is simply asking for a glass of water, deconstructing corrupt ideologies, or one is transcendentally calculating the past, the minds apparatus has to have the ability to construct itself around the issue at hand if it is to talk its way around the issue at hand. Obviously any thoughts I express verbally I can also express in my own head silently. If for instance I talk my way around the issue of racism in my own head and I arrive at the correct conclusion, (that being that all the fundamental principles of racism are wrong) this means that I had to firstly establish the racist’s points of principle in my own head before I could negate them. Moreover, the negation of racist principles can only be possible if there are principle positions in nature that I can establish an a priori and therefore substitute as a conclusion.

When I am own head and I am thinking about racism, there’s a core feeling in my mind of the holistic whole. I can transcend the whole and I can arrive at different positions in my mind, such as the, sit-ins in the 1960s or the anti Semitic cogs thrown in the 1930s, or I can just sit and ponder my feelings internally. The senses are just a guide for our feelings. We can’t have feeling about the world without the necessary points of principle that guide them. I can’t have feelings about equality without having the points of principle that establish equality in me. All my feelings about the world are in relation to the world.

If I were to talk my way around the issue of racism in my head in fifty different languages, all the fundamental points of principle that guide me on the subject would remain the same, given that I can and will arrive at the correct conclusion each time. Meaning that we can talk the talk we talk on points of principle regardless of the sounds we use to denote them. These points of principle exist as fixed positions in our minds and we intuitively recognize them when all the pieces are painted correctly for us. The mind works in either a rational frame or an irrational frame, regardless of the language structured around it.

All sentences are conditional on their construction. All argument is conditional on its construction. All construction is conditional on its parts. I’m technically trying to construct a picture here and the very picture I’m trying to paint for you is conditional on its parts. It’s conditional on all the points that I am making being actual facts of reality. It’s conditional on you the reader being able to understand it. All conditions rest on there being a contingency of parts. Again, I will elaborate more on this point later.

The very fact that I can transcendentally pull symbols out of the air and write them down in set configurations so as to relay a point of position to you the reader, means that I am constructing something. And if I’m constructing a picture that means there has to be structure and structure means that there has to be fixed points of principle. Structure cannot be established around random points.

It’s not about counting it’s all about the fact that the mind can count which is a whole different kettle of twists. The key to understanding the foundation of language is contained in the content, or “substance” of language, which emanates from ones mind and all content is predicated upon fixed principles. That’s why concepts like sexism and racism have no principles supporting them. There’s no content. There’s no substance. They’re simply reactionary “principles” which means they’ve been pulled out of thin air. Their method is simply based on guessing, 1 + 1 = 3, or 1 + 1 = 7, and so on, thin air. Just like the reactionary principles inherent in all pseudo science. Anything outside the realms of factual discourse is nonsense. Or more to the point, it’s the idol cogs that clog the machinery.

If something exists it has by definition content. The word content is just a concept we use to denote the elements contained in a whole. For example the contents of a jar, or the contents of a book are simply elements contained within the whole. If there’s content in anything, that means that there’s elements of content contained in it. If there are elements of content then each element rests on there being a point of principle supporting it. A biscuit in a jar rests on all the principle factors that make it a biscuit. A dragon in a book rests on all the points of principle that make it a dragon. Even the words that we use to communicate with each other all rest on their own elementary principles.

If the key to understanding the foundations of language wasn’t contained in its content then people who use sign language to talk to one another couldn’t express the same core content that we all do. They talk the same talk we walk without ever uttering a sound verbally, don’t they? They may use signs instead of sounds to communicate with one another, but sentences like, “I love you” or “I am hungry” or any sentence expressed through sign language for that matter, carries the same elementary content regardless. Sign language is basically structured along and around the very same imprints that are laid in every human mind. Ontologically we’re all shooting from the same hip or rather we’re all predicated upon the same invisible strings, which hang from nature’s fixed principles and directly govern us.

Science, or rather science as a concept exists only in the mind. It exists in the mind along established points of fixed principle. Consequently, all scientific inventions manifest in reality are just an extension of the mind. Example, The engine of a car was constructed in the mind first. The mind structures itself along and around certain lines of fixed principles. 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal structure therefore it’s a line of fixed principle. 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 4 is a line of fixed principle. A, B, C, D, E, is a line of fixed principle. Science would have no foundation if it were not based upon the establishment of fixed principles. The scientific method is predicated upon fixed principles. Reading and writing is based on fixed principles. The very nature of thinking itself is based on a foundation of fixed principles and when we talk aloud, the grammatical structures we form when we’re communicating with each other are all structured along and around these fixed principles.

All structure is positioned on and along points of fixed principle. Each principle point is a set position, which the mind can identify and recognize as either a single fixed position or else as a position relative to other fixed positions, when they’re running in sequence. That’s why we can ponder and conceptualize terms like monadic or polyadic predicates. For example the mind can identify one nail in the roof of a house as a single fixed position, or it can run the whole house off as a sequence of fixed positions. The mind can run the house off as a transcendental fixture. Or the mind can identify Martin Luther king the man, as a single fixed position, or the mind can identify him in a sequence of fixed positions in the context of and in relation to institutionalized racism. Each statement is conditional so the mind can direct itself and establish the relative conditional factors around each set position.

Anything written down in any field of the sciences, or any other subject for that matter, is essentially an extension of the points of principle that appear natural to us in the mind. Without a fixed point to work from, one could begin nothing. In writing this piece I am working from, o beginning from established fixed principles. I am essentially beginning on a foundation of established content.

Mankind could never have established a scientific method if we didn’t have the language to concur with each other on what the method is and how it can be applied. If we didn’t have a way of relaying the points of position to one another there would, or could be no universal science. The world of parts and transcendental fixtures can only be viewed intuitively through the five senses, and then analyzed through the minds phenomenological apparatus. When any factually based calculation is arrived at, one is left with an element of content, which is basically a temporary fixed position from which one can work. When we relay these points of principle to each other and concur on them they become the building blocks of life. Thus they become points of principle along the minds schematics.

All schematics are based on there being fixed points of position, science included, or else there wouldn’t be, or couldn’t be a map to follow in any field. All the fundamental positions in reality are based in the foundation of a cage the mind can’t rattle. Our ontology is printed, if you will, along and upon these positions. In fact every book ever written is written upon and around schematics. The aim of any book is to lead you somewhere, “Harry Potter” included. If you peel any book down to its points of principle you’re left with its schematics. That’s why Harry Potter can be translated. If Harry Potter is translated into let’s say Chinese, only the surface sounds and symbols change. However, the content of the book, what it is constructed around and establish upon remains the same. All books are written around points of position. Some points are simply pointing out objects like man or tree, but others are based on the points of position or rather the schematics that take you somewhere.

The recognized principles of science are the schematics of science. Each established principle is a universal. Having an imagination is an indirect consequence of the mind being able to fix position on any given situation and then if the mind chooses to, it can add or subtract from the given number. Fantasy is simply based on adding one more part. One more eye makes the monster, if you like. If you peel away the contents of a book based on fiction, the points of principle are basically contingent on the author of the work using his/her mind in adding or subtracting different pieces to each frame. So for example, if the proper or standard frame- work for the number of eyes a person has is two, then adding one more makes the monster, subtracting one makes the Cyclops. All fictional writing and all pseudo science are based around these principles.

Every sentence serves a function. The last sentence functioned to point out just that. And again the last sentence, which was the second sentence of this paragraph, functioned to point out the function of the first sentence. QED. The function of any sentence is to set position between what the mind thinks internally and its external reality. Right now if you’re reading this, you’re simply a part of my external reality and all I’m simply trying to do is coordinate the apparatus in your head into a fixed position with the apparatus in my head. 1 + 1 = 2. If you agree well then the minds apparatus is in fixed position with mine. Remember all I’m trying to do is lead you somewhere.

Our internal realities and our external realities are the same for both of us. That’s a position we can all relate to. The first sentence of this paragraph led your mind to that position. We’re all constituted the same way from the inside out. Skin color is just a surface alteration. That too is a position we can all relate to. “I love you” “I hate you” “Peace” “I hope the weather is nice for your holiday” Each and every one of these statements is a position set in the mind. Our words merely act as an intermediary device, or rather as a conjunction between the two. Each sentence is a bridge into someone else’s head. There’s no point in saying anything if it doesn’t have a function. The idol cogs never add up.

“Would you like a cup of tea sir?” “Yes I would, thank you very much” Each sentence serves as a function. Each sentence establishes a position. There are thousands of sentences that establish positions in much the same way. “I am going for a long walk” “I am taking the soul for a long stroll” They last two sentences both say the exact same thing, in that they both establish the exact same position. “I like your new book” “I like your new car” “I like your new shoes” The last three statements all set position. I like your new X, I like your new X, I like your new X. X, which represents each object in the picture, can be denoted using three different phonetically shaped sounds, namely, book, car and shoes.

The function of the sentence is to establish a position. All sentences spoken or written are based on there being a contingency of parts. For example if I ask for a cup of tea, I’m allowing for the fact that there is such a thing as a cup, that there is a drink called tea, and that there is somebody else who not only exists but who also recognizes what I’ve said. Every factual sentence spoken addresses facts that exist in reality, which themselves are the parts that the sentence contingently rests upon. Racism is contingent on nothing but thin air, which basically means that it should never have existed in the first place. Once the mind understands its contingency relationship with the world the shell just falls into place around the core.

All our relationships with the real world involve and revolve around the fact that there is a world to revolve around and so every relationship is based on there been a contingency of parts. The relationship I’m having with my computer right now is based on me understanding the contingent parts and there been a contingency of parts to understand. I have a relationship with the keys and their key meanings. Every word I write is configured around a contingency of its parts. Namely symbols. The very fact that I am writing this piece is contingent on the fact that you will be able to read it. So every factual sentence that connects us, or sets up the same position in our minds is based on its own contingency. All fixed principles rest on their contingency.

Philosophical propositions aren’t needed. (Wittgenstein) In proposing anything to each other, what we’re essentially doing is we’re trying to establish and fix a position between two or more minds. Once the position is established as a universal, we don’t have to continue proposing it. Instead we can build from there. Martin Luther King fought philosophically for what was right, but for him to fight his language had to be coordinated around and so therefore structured around, a reaction to institutional racism. To achieve equality one has to propose equality. However once equality has been established the propositions are no longer needed. If racism had never existed, Martin Luther King in terms of a revolutionary leader would not have been channeled into challenging it. What would he have challenged?

The concept of equality exists in the mind because the mind is ontologically attuned to natures fixed principles. Equality like everything else relies on it’s contingency factors. Oppression is wrong based on its negative contingency factors. Nazism is wrong based on its negative contingency. It’s contingent on the fact that some people are inferior to others and so therefore it’s ok to exploit or even exterminate them. If one wanted to show this to be the case in an argument, one would have to show two separate contingencies in nature, which of course they cannot. However hard one may try, the contingency principles that unite us leave no room for any kind of distinctions to be drawn. Surface distinctions such as skin tones or keeping ones dinky finger out are mere arbitries.

Certain principles apply in every branch of philosophy. To get there, wherever there is, we must first proposition the possibilities to find the way, but once we’re there, these philosophical propositions are no longer needed. Once we’re taught to swim, we just swim. Once we’re taught to play piano, we just play. Teaching requires a different structure in language than the structure of just doing. Even the points I’m proposing here will no longer be needed once we’re swimming in the rivers of paradise together. Incidentally, Mother natures the only fascist who I bow down to.

If we’re explaining something to someone then technically we’re describing something to someone and if we’re describing something then the explanation has to have points of reference, (points of position) contained within the description itself. Or how else by definition can we explain anything? Let’s just say I’m teaching an apprentice the art of building car engines. All the points of principle that I teach him/her will be contained in the description that I give them of a car engine. What I am essentially teaching them is the engines schematics. The fundamental positions have to be memorized if one is to repeat them. Without them all the objects that make up the whole remain as just parts. Contingency is a kind of underlying canvass in every picture.

The same rules apply if I’m teaching somebody that racism is wrong. Racism is fundamentally wrong and so therefore the fundamentals of reality need to be positioned in their relative places. The explanation will have to contain points of principle within the description if I am to convince them that they’ve got (A, B, C, D) down as (A, C, B, D). All the answers and points that I am trying to establish here are contained within the description. All points of reference in reality exist independently of the author who clarifies and relays them.

Language, whether written or spoken is just an extension of the thoughts we are thinking in our minds. Language is simply a medium we use to communicate our inner feelings and ideas to one another. I like to think of the words we speak and the words we write down on paper as “surface” language. Any thoughts that I express through surface language must have a word attached to it, if I am to denote the position I am trying to relay to someone else. Also the person I’m conveying the message to must understand the sounds I’m shaping and the set configurations of symbols we use if they are to concur with me. I’ll elaborate more about surface language in a moment.

Let’s go back and look at the first sentence of the last paragraph again. Again, the sentence you’ve just read establishes the position I’d like you to take. It’s denoted in the content. The function of the sentence was to set a position between my mind and you, the person reading this. For it to function I just had to structure the sentence around a certain contingency of parts. Actually let’s look again at the first sentence of this paragraph. The principle position is denoted in the words “Look” because it’s the position I want you to take when you’re in fixed position. The rest of the sentence simply positions your mind, or coordinates you to where you need to be, which in this case is on the first sentence of the last paragraph.

Let’s look now at the first sentence of the last paragraph. The principle position is denoted in the word “extension” because that’s the point being made, or rather the position I’m trying to establish in that particular sentence. The rest of the sentence merely positions your mind, firstly on the subject, “language” and the two ways of applying it and secondly on the contingent concept of thoughts, and then on what we are doing with them (thinking) and where we are doing it. (In the mind)

Our surface words, the words we speak and write down, are the end result of what I like to think of as, first cause language. All our words are expressions of innate feelings we have in our minds. For example, the language that we have created around science was structured around a natural want in us to ask questions about where we are, why we are, who we are and what we are. Our words grow from a “need seed” in us. We have words for medicine, because there is a seed in the need, for us to find medicine. We have words for the different relationships we form with one another and in relation to the whole universe, because there is a seed in the “need” for us to form relationships. The foundation for all our conceptualized realities lies in their being a reality to conceptualize our minds around. Words simple help as tools of expedience to relay our first cause language to one another.

Words themselves don’t actually mean anything per se. They’re just sounds and symbols. The word, paranoia, for example is just a sound that we shape with our mouths to convey a concept of a reality we all experience internally from time to time. The feeling behind the concept exists without the word. The word paranoia is used merely to convey the feeling. It’s one thing to have a feeling about something in reality, but it’s an entirely different thing altogether to be able to transadentally conceptualize it into sound waves and then relay it to someone else. With the result being a concurrence of the same shared feelings in everyone.

The Chinese, just to pick a language at random, have their own word to convey the same concept, paranoia. Point being that the innate feelings that are the foundations, or rather the meanings that inhere in the words that we all use everyday, exist universally regardless of the surface language, which we use to denote them.

The foundations that underlie the minds concepts are our feelings and they exist at the first cause level, between what we feel internally and externally about a situation. Even worrying about a heart problem is an external worry, in that every part in the body is external to the mind. It’s kind of like worrying about the cat outside the minds doors. Equality is a transcendental feeling and its points of reference are what we are establishing when it’s on the table for debate. When we argue the case for equality, what we’re essentially doing is we’re pulling out points of principle from a kind of transcendental intake of the out-takes on the issue.

Each new point we learn about life is a principle of life and if the principle is set in ones mind it basically means that one has tuned into it. Fixed principles exist as tracks underneath our inner feelings. All of our different surface languages are used to communicate our universal inner feelings and fixed principles to one another. If Henry Thoreau’s writings on civil disobedience is translated into fifty different languages all the points of principle he makes remain the same. There’s no doubt that his grasp of language and his use of words is beautiful as art gets but the underlying message of what he is trying to relay, is in the content. That’s why we can all concur on the same points of principle with him.

Thoreau could have made the same points about civil disobedience without using all the colorful strokes. I could have made the same point about the last point without using the words, “colorful stroke” I could have simply said; Thoreau could have made the same points about civil disobedience without using every word in the dictionary. The point being, and if there’s a point, then there’s a position, (that in itself being another point) that Thoreau’s points of principle are what is dressed up in the words, and any one who can follow what he is trying to say will invariably arrive at the same fixed positions he did. The condition being, of course, that our calculations and conclusions are the same as his.

All points of principle are arrived at, by calculating the given situation whether it’s with numbers our words. Within the words Thoreau uses are calculations and if we agree with his principle positions it means we have arrived at the same conclusions. Therefore we have calculated the situation one step at a time, one speech act at a time and so on, as he did and we have concurred on relative fixed positions. In fact one step at a time in every sense is the only way. One moment at a time, one thought at a time, one note, one syllable, one sound, one number, A, B, C, D, 1, 2, 3, 4, at a time, and so on. This phenomenological principle is a universal. There are only whole numbers because our minds can only exist in whole moments. The mind can only think in one given moment at a time.

All the problems we face as a species can only be solved if the principle positions that support the answers to our problems are established. That’s what enlightenment rests upon. Those who continue to ignore and negate the facts of reality are simply those who cannot structure their minds around nature’s principle positions. Therefore their language is also wrong. The language used by politicians, racists, sexists, lawyers, accountants, economists, football hooligans, patriots, patriarchs, nuns, priests, popes and so on, all revolve around a structure that has it’s foundations in the realms of an illusion. Their words have killed, maimed, raped, ridiculed, ostracized, damned, demonized, iconoclized, and practically bastardized our poetic nature. That’s why the record keeps playing the same tune. The idol cogs certainly have clogged up the machinery.

The answer to all our problems, clearly lie in our minds. If our minds have the ability to calculate their way into fixed position with one another, then by definition the mind can also find and establish all the fixed principles of nature and lay them down as the rules that we can naturally live by. Every step taken to advance our place in the world and the universe has been a search to establish fixed position. If we are ever to find our way in the world we can only get there by establishing our place in the world, and if something is established among us then it’s fixed among us. That’s why science like I’ve already stated is a universal because it’s based on natural fixed principles, or fixed positions. And if a position can be fixed in one mind, like the principles of science, or the fact that racism and sexism are ontologically wrong, then language is simply the medium needed to establish that the same position is fixed in other minds too so we can concur. Since we’re all ontologically constituted the same way it stands to reason that we’re all mapped out along the same road.

The upshot of this is that the road I believe is sign posted the whole way to utopia. Utopia exists in the moment in just the same way that, let’s just say, oppression is wrong in every moment, past and present, irrespective of those who continue to negate the facts. The ugly facts of racism will be just as ugly in a thousand years and yet the principle position’s that we can establish to refute its ugliness exists in this present moment in time. Basically all we have to do to know our position in the world is establish all the ontological positions, which are predicated upon fixed axiomatic principles, and we’re there. And given that these axiomatic principles exist and that they can be established as schematics along the minds map, then each point can be established as the epistemic conditions, which we can all live by. We can live, if you like, under a psychological constitution. Not something our forefathers ever even considered in their declarations. They simply didn’t understand what X was and yet they were trying to debate Y around it. Anyhow, never mind, like the man with the plan said, all the answers are right there if front of us. ‘Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.’

I will say no more for now, and I am aware that there are a lot of stones I have left unturned. But if I could come and talk some more about principle positions, I know I can fill in all the links you might be having trouble in making. Like Socrates I am a speaker and not a writer. To be frank with you, writing bores me. It slows down the thinking process. It leaves to many stones unturned which are easier to lift if the other person’s eyes are in front of me. Only the discerning and enlightened mind can transcend the incorporeal cage and lay itself down along the tracks of fixed principle. Anyhow, without trying to sound disrespectful, what’s your position now?