Blog for Nameless-Value

novel, essay, poetry, criticism, diary

Triplism's Suggestion Part14

I defined that Time itself has no now, at part9. That means that time by itself could never be the thing of which nature could never be accompanied with consciousness as we all are having. In other words, it has no specific look nor featured notice nor interest. 
That truth on the contrary evidences that we all are never that kind of presence as no conscious it. In other words, now means our notice to something or so in our communicative context.
By the way, necessarily now itself has arbitrary defined range e.g. if we presume that now is this year 2021, first last year must be the closest past from now as 2020. But simultaneously all past as each last year's last year which we infinitely could be set, namely all these items composing "set" must be past. That example necessarily can be applied to each decade, each century or so as longer index, necessarily it could be applied to shorter it, with month, day, hour, minute, second or milliseconds (Last one is not used for our daily life's routine cognition). ❄1


Then, in terms of our life, at least for us, now means our own lifetime's span holding any moment, then all past time must have been anytime now. And necessarily from this moment on, any date or any moment could be now either at least since the moment we personally die in future of own life.
With these factors, we can easily define that now is just the thing which we expediently set for explanation at each communication to any other one, or ones, then if we set only so genuinely no contradiction held reality, it only must be no now, in other words, now itself from the beginning must be accompanied with contradiction. Because what accompanies no consciousness must be the sole perfect completion as what not having contradiction.


Here, we could have prepared some so important premise for keeping going on this an  analysis and some evidencing object at this series. That must be, first our "mind" must be what must be the integral item only for us, then necessarily our reality and our conscious world universally must be discribed with displaying like next, at least in terms of our act's aspect in time system.


〇 〇    〇 〇 〇   〇〇〇〇   〇〇〇〇〇  〇〇〇〇 ⇨             〇  ⇨         〇  ⇨         〇  ⇨        〇        ⇨         〇




⇨ 〇 〇 〇 ⇨ 〇 〇 ⇨ 〇
    〇       〇   〇        from Part12


However the last upper row it is just one upper and one lower, then, actually that tasty mind empty must be so flashy. Anyway more so integral thing to be difined now is just lower 〇meas our mind. This diaglam order means it. 
Here, for the present, we could set the most integral diaglam's dimension. That must be our world's the most typical and standard reality's strucutre. Because time by itself lower row must never be absent from each site. That must mean some kind of God's domain.
Nevertheless, we could never survive only at the dimension only God was given. 
Then, we must need triple( 〇 only left is exceptional, but it means just empty-minded conditioned us)order.     〇
            
Not so never only just empty-minded, we have that thing in mind, we must be accompanied with mind, that thing has no discrimination to these systematized indicator.


Originally our mind accompanying reality from the beginning necessarily includes contradiction. At the matter of fact that thing has already been evidenced with Russell's paradox.



The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself. For let us suppose that the function F(fx) could be its own argument: in that case there would be a proposition F(F(fx)), in which the outer function F and the inner function F must have different meanings, since the inner one has the form O(fx) and the outer one has the form Y(O(fx)). Only the letter 'F' is common to the two functions, but the letter by itself signifies nothing. This immediately becomes clear if instead of F(Fu) we write (do) : F(Ou) . Ou = Fu. That disposes of Russell's paradox. (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.333) _ from wikipedia, Russell's paradox ❄2



As upper quoted sentences' essence shows us, set F means necessarily our mind as lower row's ordinarily just one synthcized it, it could be each momentary our consciousness( including unconsciousness and subconsiousness). Because all set theory has absolute premise that set by itself could necessarily need our mind. 


Here, again, we'd gotten some so certain column, as basic fromula at least in terms of triplism's fundamental principle. And that all explicable logical process either means Heidegger's Sorge or so in concept driving our anxiety on mind which could make our all time system's consicousness.
Because, certainly substentially now must be some kind of illusion, because it must be at least in our own lifetime, anytime must be so, then its fact must be equevalent with Russell's paradox's main element as propositional item F. In other words, set theory's set either must be so expedinent, then its explicable elucidation to this series' thinking process must be the question," what is our expediency? " Probably it must be depend on our mind demanding to make own mind to public criteria, but that factual truth could be analyzed at another chance.  
(to be continued)


Jan. 27th. 2021


Memorandum; Now driving this time's debating main concept as expediency must be made by our perceptive time's current in precise sensibly grip's impossibilty as we can know potentially on mind that time's current and its nature's grip or grasp must be obliged to be only so vague and fuzzy, that things' implicit evidence means our expediency to own mind as presence and time system we can understand.
Now could never be indentified, because it must be anytime expedient, that truth could be corresponded to Russell interpreting set, then necessarily it must be contradictory for defining so precisely, but without its concept, we could never undertstand not only our presence but also past and future. 
If very rough summary was given to upper quoted wikipedia interpretation, that explanation would be given there, at least as trasnlating order.
           






❄1

❄2