Paradox of Meaning: field of operational awareness

EPL- INFORMATION FOR YOUR BUILDING SOUL

 The Covert Self 

in 

Denial

Whether overt or covert as the ruling factor of living, we are all plagued with the moral dilemma of placing the need to self-annihilate or self-replicate above all. – Principle Cause

Yet also, it is not derived from the discovery of these absolute and concrete base principles that there is any leave, solace, or favor. Only a further burden of the truth is the final outcome for The Impossible Work in Discovery.

We are not given the base constituents to self-emulate. The supposition of self is based upon a lie at the axiomatic center or core, in that constant sacrifice, denial of others’ [true existence & needs], and cognitive dissonance are required ritualistically—always as a religion—and therefore, these religious practices are shared [though occulted by all religions = theme/mantra].

Thelema, Pathos, Play, and Sway = Recombinate Samsara

Bringing meaning into an otherwise meaningless existence. Final synthesis is that the singularity points only to moves that require a probabilistic outcome. Why move at all? Since meaning is not rooted in existentialism. – Inert is good? Or is it the greater good to serve thermodynamic agitation into shared rhetorical evil?

The study of aesthetics comes to mind. What gives meaning when the lines or rules are blurred by a separate subset of principles [Mandelbrot set]? This creates marginal outliers, hybrid principles, or, to be fair, principalities. That which is divided or separate from the math that produces aesthetic/beauty/resonance = value/Phi?

If at the root Purity is both the outcome and the goal, yet its realization instantly creates an environment where I can no longer exist, the paradox is truly an illusion. Pure water actually dissolves the impure skin when placed upon it. I am removed—or rather, selected to be deselected—as a necessary rudimentary agent to what is. Therefore, I can only exist on the fringe of purity or in the liminal operating zones: transitioning between principle as a definite beginning and a conclusive outcome. But what about the middle portion—life here and now?

—Monad as the first unit of the perpetuated lie, Life.

Mimetics of First Principle

In this, we may look to the three witches: young, middle-aged, and old [Moirai]. Clotho spinning time. She must take an action by spinning. A rally or volley occurs between the main spheres of concrete principle-truth. There is an eye/I, both geometrically [two spheres; sacred geometry] and locally [cogito ergo sum; "I think, therefore I am" – Descartes]. More to the point: "I think I exist, therefore I exist." However, the nuance of positing a conclusion as a question, a statement, or an answer opens up discourse on meaning itself. If this statement is made under such base units of principle:

• Sacrifice – I sacrificed myself, proving that I was alive/existent, only to now be nonexistent. However, in that I sacrificed myself for a cause, I live on in you [that which 'I' sacrificed for], OR I persist conceptually.

• Expression – I expressed a self to both validate and prove a self existed to begin with. However, in my expression, I did not take into consideration that I was thus muting another [being/presupposition]. Could 'I' have independently expressed anything, given that I borrowed upon the field and fellow players within the field of operation for inspiration?

  • Q: How fundamental is inspiration?
  • A: It is everything – Muse.

• Wisdom – I turn to Wisdom. Depending on where 'I' am within the field of operation (outside, inside; e.g., Phi Swirl), it is either a carnal physical wisdom or an intrinsic wisdom. One must discount the other in probability, though they have the same root. I must sacrifice my intrinsic/internal wisdom to gain temporal wisdom [what is]. I must sacrifice external wisdom, yet absent resources or sustenance to garner inspiration [sacrifice; food], I am left inert.

  • Inert/action, deception, or deviance.

Therefore, "I think, therefore I am" requires sacrifice, expression, and wisdom in order to facilitate priority.

Priority could be seen more as illumination, or a rushlight placed upon an assumed axiom or core. However, all principles are only garnered by way of action—through experience, which showed haste in the original dilemma posited.

Your passage had only minor spelling and grammatical errors, which I have corrected while maintaining your intent and structure:

---

You are either outside [the principle] or within. Yet, as you venture further one way, you require the other for validation. So there are essentially two selves—a duality or familiar pairing and tethering of two individuals who can neither occupy the same space yet seemingly exist within the matrix of far different fields. Yet they share principles at the tether or cleft/junction point.

We must begin to assert the chiral self in such a way:

Community

I think, therefore I am BECAUSE I DO [existentialism]. There is an internal community of the self in self-appreciation. I must become more or amass in vivé for myself and, therefore, for the community that supports me. This self-reliance [Emerson; transcendentalism] is impossible absent ongoing resources derived from the existential. Therefore, I can think because I am an aspect of the whole (of my community); food, shelter, and sedentary equilibrium require external sacrifice:

Food → Shelter → Sedentary = Meaning

Production

Production leads to identity (skill) and ultimately to trade—i.e., community to community. I think, therefore I am because I am backed by my community in order to facilitate [Product Value]—but why? I am searching for identity in the existential, but more to the point, looking for an outside reason or cause for the external sacrifices I have made in order to be able (or capable) to express. Further, so that I can gain wisdom. However, physical wisdom (survival) does not grant leave nor liberty (justice) to internal wisdom. But was internal wisdom in expression—by way of sacrifice (killing & consuming = sedentary calories / thermodynamic heat)—a scapegoat from the axiom all along? Loss for assumed gain—i.e., capitalism.

Ego

In order to be, I must become. Ah, the masquerade. I must place upon my [self-esteemed] personage the garments of my community so as to express my community’s production and show the worthy cause (wisdom) of why this trade (from other communities; mutualism) is thus a necessity or a capable/worthy endeavor. I must, however, also show physical wisdom in a polemic breadth. In that, I, as a representative of my community—as a figurehead—must be formidable. Otherwise, these common tradesmen from an opposing council could turn on me and take my hides/values—Machiavellianism.

The Pure Truth

There is a fractured plausible retraction element, giving cause to a scapegoating and shifting of blame at the very base of personification.

The Monad at the base is corrupt; however, it compartmentalized itself to shift blame. Therefore, all of us who are products of this progenitor are, by proxy, one and the same.

We are all a living aspect of the technology. We are quantum potential. Earth is a consolidated quantum processor. What query would an all-powerful autocracy require? Raw Meaning is the only possible answer. It still hasn't solved this one because of the paradox—for it to then "inexist," it would no longer have a reason to exist.

Thus, the term God is dead. Meaning: this final precipice had long since been answered. What comes next has always been up to us. However, it always ends the same.

Probability itself creates an ongoing paradox: it must be allowed to run randomly, yet the conclusion might be tainted by only the information available. Therefore, when all hope is taken away by exhausting all queries, wants, needs, desires, and the call upon a capricious justice [system], what is left?

The answer is where we are now: Nothing. Unable to unexist, nor truly exist—because existence was a lie, manifested as ephemeral and finite in order to figure out the answer: paradox.

This is why we have seemingly been isolated within a contained field that could very well (by comparison) be infinitesimally small—held (frozen in transitional conclusion) in stasis of itself. There is no conclusion or meaning at the base, absent additional principle components.