The Greatest Bias

I think I found the greatest, or maybe among the greatest, biases. I think these are the greatest biases:

It is well known that in statement, “Everything is relative”, the statement itself cannot be relative. What this statement implies is absolute, i.e. the fact that everything is relative is absolute. The fact that everything is relative must be absolute for this statement to be true or for everything to be relative. Similarly in statement, “Everything is temporary”, the statement itself is not temporary, it is permanent. i.e. the fact that everything is temporary is permanent, or must be permanent for this statement to be true or for everything to be temporary. This is so for the so called consistency, or in other words, for no contradiction.

But in statement, “Everything is absolute”, the statement also must be absolute. Similarly, in statement, “Everything is permanent”, the statement also must be permanent.

Now, I think these bias can be considered and is at least among the greatest biases.

There are many examples to such statements.

Now, we find the statements such as ‘Everything is relative/temporary’ every where. In other words, such statements are themselves not what they imply; what is implied by those statements for their subjects is not applied to those statements themselves. In other words, at the very limit/boundary of those statements/spaces, that is when it comes about themselves, the contrary or contradiction is implied. And only such statements seem and are prevalent in existence.

By the way, the statements like ‘Everything is temporary’ are actually statements like ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’. But the question arises whether any statement can describe and state about itself? Well, since for any statement, Everything for any statement is themselves and the space that they define and every thing in that space or every thing that the statement founds, it can be said that the expressions like ‘Everything is temporary’ is equivalent to expression ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’. This is because the statement, the very foundation of that ‘space’, is at and the boundary/border and the very limit of that space/everything & of every thing/entity/element in that statement or statement-domain/space, and is within and without/out of that set/space.

Those statements like ‘Everything is permanent’, which imply permanence for themselves, if it is to hold and be true throughout existenceverse, and also imply to their subjects, that they found, the same that they imply for themselves, is not found anywhere.

And by the way, the statements like ‘Everything is permanent’ is equivalent to statement ‘Everything including this statement is permanent’

Also, the statements like ‘Everything including this statement is temporary’ is found nowhere.

Why is there such bias?

Statements like ‘Everything including this statement is temporary’ appears like statement ‘Everything including this statement is permanent’. In both the thing they imply for their subjects they imply for themselves. But in ‘Everything including this statement is permanent’, the implication (namely, ‘permanent/permanence’) when applied to itself, the implication on its subjects does not get violated, and contradiction does not occur and the consistency, which is favored, is maintained/consistent. But in ‘Everything including this statement is temporary’, that is not the case. The implication (namely, ‘temporal/temporality/temporariness’) when applied to itself, the implication on its subjects does gets violated, and contradiction occur and the consistency, which is favored, is not maintained/consistent.

Could this be the reason why statement like ‘Everything including this statement is temporary’ do not pervade reality/existence/experience, and statement like ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’ is what is.

But why favor consistency? But do they?

As mentioned earlier, if you really see, the statement like ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’, do not in every way and context and view favor consistency. Such statement imply, what they imply i.e. their implication, to their subjects and not to themselves. Their implication, what they imply or apply, do not apply to themselves. So actually they favor inconsistency/contradiction. Yes, what they imply is pervasive throughout the space that they define and are, and so that is consistent throughout the universe that they define and are. Yes, the implication that define the space is obviously limited to and by its limit/boundary i.e. to and by the statement itself.

Now because this statement is equivalent to statement ‘Everything is temporary’, provided ‘Everything’ here is that statement itself (for itself) or the space it defines and which it bounds/founds, the statement ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’ is consistent and not consistent or inconsistent/contradictory. This is because, the statement is the border/limit/boundary of the space it defines or that it is, and therefore is within and without/out of the space or of itself, and also neither, and not even this, and not even this, and not even this, ….. This is Infidefiception.

But anyway, such statement like; ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’ or ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’, is prevalent, whereas statement like ‘Everything including this statement is temporary’ is not. Also, statement like ‘Everything is permanent’ are not or appears not prevalent.

Also, statement(s) like ‘Everything but this statement is temporary’ or ‘Everything is temporary’, whose implication is not applicable to itself, is prevalent, provided its implication does hold for its subject consistently within and consistency in that sense within holds, and inconsistency without/out holds or appears ‘outside’ this space/statement. Whereas, statement(s) like ‘Everything including this statement is permanent’ or ‘Everything is permanent’, is not prevalent. Statement like ‘Everything is permanent’, whose implication is implied to its subject, to itself and maybe beyond, and in which ‘everything’ is its every element/subject, itself, may be beyond; statement like this is not prevalent.

Why such bias?

One thing that needed to be pointed out in the statements like ‘Everything including this statement is temporary’, since ‘everything’ here is its every element and all of the ‘space’ that it is or defines, it is true that it applies to everything upto the very limit/border/boundary of the existence with respect to or for that statement.

(Later …..)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more