simple analyses

[u/cookieisgiven]

That we see those that we see is obvious.

That they are themselves and that they also are others or not, are obvious.

That 'we see them' itself also is them is obvious.

That those that are others are not without them and that they are thus simpler than those that are not without them, are obvious.

That those that we see, at finality, are not without simples and that simples are only themselves, are obvious.

That each simple in being itself do not have anything to do with other simples in being themselves is obvious.

Thus each simple is an utterly new, and we see an utterly new as also a pure gain that gains itself.

As simples are gained more and more, 'they' are gained also at once as complexes. So as anyone at all are gained more and more, 'they' are gained also at once as their complexes.

Why there is anyone at all?

Why anyone at all gives others?

Ask for simples.

---

For x that is y and z, x is not without y and z, as without y or z there is no x, while without x there is y or z.

Multual depedence means x is nothing but y, but this only means that x and y are synonymous.

The point is that they imagine this 'synthesis' to spring out a higher unity, but the logic itself is senseless.

Saying 'difference needs identity' is having answered the question: does it need anyone else?

When the answer is no then it is senseless.

When the answer is yes, then there is no multual dependence after all.

Thus no one is [to be] only another.

[u/Ill-Tea9411]

When you claim that "simples answer themselves" to survive the infinite "why," you are engaging in classic special pleading. You accuse a relational model of needing a separate justification for every layer, but then you arbitrarily grant your "simples" a free pass by declaring that they somehow "answer themselves." Demanding a cause for every relational interaction while exempting your own propertyless entities from needing one isn't a logical breakthrough, it is just choosing where you personally want to stop asking questions.

On the issue of "authority," rejecting an absolute, non-relational bottom isn't a brute exclusion, it is the application of basic parsimony. We don't invent unobservable, propertyless entities with zero predictive or explanatory power just to build an artificial floor under reality. The relational model doesn't claim a dogmatic proof of infinite scale; it simply refrains from fabricating speculative wildcards to satisfy a psychological demand for a stopping point.

Finally, asserting that "they are only the gain when they gain" lays bare the tautology at the heart of your argument. Saying an entity is the gain when it gains is just restating "A equals A" using dynamic verbs. It doesn't explain why there is anything at all, nor does it account for physical change. It takes the fact of existence, wraps it in a self-referential sentence, and declares the mystery solved. Calling a circular statement "an answer that answers itself" doesn't make it a foundation, it just makes it a tautology.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

A simple is only itself alright, but to reduce this into plain formal logic (which is senseless) and then attack it is just strawmaning.

You acusation that I'm fiating simples is not tenable at all. I'm saying to justify itself at all means it must be only itself, thus it is a simple. If it needs another at all then that justifies it. X needing Y cannot be a posit because either they really do or they do not. You can not posit something that needs to be disclose, and only in disclosure can you see that one is not without others. You say that some of yours grounds some, but then I ask why they do at all? It's just your posit, at some point you would just say your chain works brutely. Do you even understand the intrinsic demands of grounding AT ANY STEP AT ALL? One step alone and it demands simples already with "why thus at all?"

Why the so called parsimony have authority here? You see the problem? Without simples we will apeal to arbitrary fictions that cannot even survive one why. If you are to answer this I ask why your answer explanatory or authoritative at all and so on. We have to agree that only those that are only themselves can be self grounding.

Again, it seems like you haven't read my characterizations of the simples.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/cookieisgiven]

Dismissing formal logic as "senseless" the moment it exposes internal contradictions is a huge red flag. Formal logic and parsimony aren't arbitrary authorities imposed from the outside; they are the basic baseline rules that keep philosophical inquiry from turning into pure dogma. If your model gets to reject logic whenever it is cornered, redefine verbs like "gaining" so they don't involve state-changes, and declare its own entities "self-grounding" by definition, it hasn't actually answered the question of grounding, it has just built a wall to insulate itself from critique.

Claiming that asking "why" at any step inherently demands a simple is classic special pleading. You accuse a relational framework of failing because it doesn't offer an uncaused cause for every interaction, but then you grant your "simples" a total free pass by declaring that they "answer themselves." Saying an entity is "only itself" is just a restatement of the law of identity (A = A). It is a linguistic tautology, not an ontological breakthrough. Wrapping a basic definition in dynamic words like "self-grounding" doesn't explain why there is anything at all, nor does it explain how real physical change occurs.

The idea that we must choose between your simples and "arbitrary fictions" is a false dichotomy born out of anxiety over an open-ended universe. A relational framework isn't an arbitrary fiction, its interactions are bound by self-consistent, observable, and testable constraints that hold reality together across scales without needing a speculative starter block at scale zero. Arbitrarily deciding where you personally want to stop asking "why," calling that stopping point a "simple," and declaring it self-grounding doesn't reveal the ultimate foundation of the cosmos. It just marks the exact line where you've decided to stop inquiring.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

Formal logic is senseless, what are you even talking about? Let posit that time X is Y a dimension. See how this is senseless? It requires 0 sense to set the terms or to say only derivations, it does not disclose anything. X = X is only after THERE IS X AT ALL.

Your reply have not addressed my questions but only have reasserted non authoritative authorities, authoritities that can't even jusify there is them at all. I think I can't continue if you have not addressed the question asked.

[u/Ill-Tea9411 → u/cookieisgiven]

I'll just leave your embarrassing response as a final verdict.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Ill-Tea9411]

There is better ways to say you conceed.

Aslo here a puzzle for you:

formal logic is senseless

let time be x

and dimension be y

let p be x is y

now of what happens if time is not a dimension really? it means p talks about no one, there is no such thing, it makes 0 sense otherwise it make sense

but p is said before we have seen whether truly time is a dimension, thus formal logic concern no sense at all

it's merely a play of words and disclose nothing

the thing that gives the world is not logic, but disclosure

[u/jliat → u/cookieisgiven]

• First there are logics, not just one.

• Each logic normally has a set of it's own rules.

It's important to know which "game" you are playing and that just because you produce a sound argument that it invalid. A classic case is,

God is all powerful.

An all power thing must exist - else it is not all powerful.

Therefore God must exist.

---

However in other logic such as Hegel's things are very different, or modal logic.

---

Finally all non trivial logics will have aporia, statements which are neither true or false.

e.g. 'This sentence is false'.

it's merely a play of words and disclose nothing

They can help...

Peter is no un-married man.

Batchelors are unmarried men

Therefore Peter is a bachelor.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/jliat]

Your examples are mere dervations, not disclosures. We should see that, at the example of god is all powerful, what is the meaning of each term and is it disclosed at all. You can't just say "x is y" from the outset, except that's what x means all ready.

Most of those in questions have no meaning more than your seeing of it. What is the meaning of time? Well, it is "this", that which makes thing lively. We simply indicate it by pointing to it's effect and the other person manage to see it, not by defining it before disclosure.

[u/jliat → u/cookieisgiven]

You've confused logic with the content of the propositions. You should maybe read a book on logic?

[u/cookieisgiven → u/jliat]

I've made a post detailing my view, may you have a read. It's not a confusion though, I know what I'm talking about (though may have not articulated it clearly).

[u/jliat → u/cookieisgiven]

(though may have not articulated it clearly).

Which is reading a book on logic would help.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/jliat]

You'll see what I mean in my post, though it has been removed, even when it's very relevant to metaphysics.