Figure 1:

X = Law of Identity and Conclusion.

~X = Law of Negation

~X v X = Law of Excluded Middle

In Figure 1, what is essentially observable, no matter how you put it, is a thing.  This thing cannot not be that thing, since one can observe it, and if it is that thing, and it is not, not that thing, it is that thing.  What is essential about this Figure is that it is observable in all aspects of the world around us, for if we were observing a world around us that was irrational and inconsistent, the world would be manifestly irrational and inconsistent, which would, in fact, denote its underlying rationality, by being irrational and inconsistent, as irrational and inconsistent.  And, if we were observing a world that was both rational and irrational, there would be no problem, whatsoever, in claiming that the world was, both, rational and irrational, as (though the terms are seemingly exclusive) the irrationality of the statement must be rationally confined to be understood. In other words, if we let, “the World is Irrational and Rational,” be represented as “A,” and for it to be so, it could not be, “~A,” it must be the case that it is, “A,” rather than “~A”, and thus, it is, “A,” i.e., “the World is Irrational and Rational.”  However, since we also constrained both the irrationality and rationality of the world with rationale, the world is, necessarily, constrained and constituted by rational structures, rather than the seemingly irrational ones that pervade its appearances, which denote, for its observer, both a rational and irrational world.

Without such rationality, without this latent mechanism pervading our thought processes, the world would lack communicability, we couldn’t— nor could anything else — interact with itself, or the world, and thus, not only must we use it as a tool to interact with the world, the world, in order for it to interact with its own parts of its own, non-artificial accord, a particular part of its structure must be that part for that part to be capable of interacting with its constituent part, which must be that constituent part; and, the process by which the two interact must be the process by which the two interact, otherwise, they would neither interact, be the part that is capable of interacting with the constituent part of the structure, nor be the constituent part of the structure, itself.  This necessitates the world be rational, not merely intellectually constrained by our own rationality.

For the world to be rational, and for it to interact with itself independent of Humanity’s, or any subjects observations of it that are part of the structure of the world, it must be contained by a Mind.  This Mind cannot be of the world, a particular of the world, to constrain the world, in order for the world to be capable of interacting with itself sans an observer within its structure.  Thus, the world must be rationally constrained by an external observer that permits the structure of the world to exist, independent of any observer that is of the world’s structure, as any observer that is of the world’s structure is not permitting the processes of the world but observing them, and without that particular, there’s no reason to believe the world would not continue to function.  Thus, the particular of the world cannot be considered to be the original locus of the world’s processes.  Then, logic is observed via the world, understood through our faculties of intellect, and founded upon a subject that constrains the world rationally, external to the world’s own structure.

The teleological function of this process is, mainly, to identify.  Without the capacity to inherently identify one object from another, we could not interact with the world in a self-animated manner.  We would be subject to the whims of a chaotic world that lacked definition; i.e. we wouldn’t see the world.  But, even if we couldn’t look at an object, a thing in front of us, we wouldn’t, somatically, be capable of interacting with the world in any capacity either, for no thing would be distinguishable from another; interaction would be impossible for us.  Thus, rationality is both an underlying mechanism that, latently, we make use of, and an innate mechanism that we are conscious of, apply as a tool, and use to improve our standing within the world by expanding our capacity to interact with it in a clearer and more defined manner.

The purpose of our classification, as indicated above, is to interact with the world in a clearer and more defined manner.  If we did not have this innate mechanism, as a species, we would not have existed, and since we have this mechanism, we are conscious of it, and can use it to improve our biological fitness; the ability to aptly classify the world in a manner that improves one’s survivability over another makes the use of the mechanism conducive to the species' survival, flourishing, and well being.  Thus, we inherently make use of rationality, we wouldn’t exist if we didn’t, being aware of it allows us to use it as a tool, and as a tool, it improves our fitness, and wellbeing, that is, it improves our health, our ability to avoid harm, and our capacity to reconcile and deal with harms.

Given that there is a thing, and something like it exists, based in its denoted properties, any other thing that also has those denoted properties can be said to be like the original thing defined.  As a result, given that we can identify like objects or aspects of an object, we can reasonably relate a thing with objects (identities) of its like.  E.g. chemicals will have certain properties, particular chemicals will have similar properties, given that an effect can affect a particular chemical, it is reasonable to assume that other chemicals will also be affected, in some manner, by that effect; again, given that Humans are alike, and particular Humans have a particular aspect, it can be reasonably assumed that other Humans could have that particular aspect; and, given that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, and the Earth is a planet, it can be reasonably assumed that other planets are like, or are, oblate spheroids.  Boolean logic exemplifies this type of thinking, but overall, this type of thinking is done latently; i.e. it is done nearly unconsciously, until the categories, identities, interacting with each other become too complex to be automatically assumed to be similar enough to be related, or to have relational processes, until they can.

Finally, for Figure 1, what can be taken away from this aspect of reality is that it is understood linearly.  That is, there is a process that starts with an observation, leads to a hypotheses, is challenged to discern its validity, and, finally, either validated as being the case or not, which is inherent in observing reality all together.  Without this linear process, moving from observation, hypotheses, experimentation, conclusion, and validation, we could, in no way, comprehend or interact with reality, nor could anything else, even those things that can be observed as being non-subjects, mere objects, interact with themselves.  Thus, it appears that nature has a linear structure, or at least, is constrained by a linear structure, but what is interesting is what is elucidated in Figure 2.

Figure 2:

A: Ascent

B: Flourishing

C: Stasis

D: Descent

In Figure 2, what is denoted is a rise in being, a growth in being, a stasis of that being, and ultimately, a descent of that being. E.g., a cloud forms, it grows and darkens, it becomes too heavy, the cloud begins to precipitate, the cloud diminishes or vanishes, the rain turns into puddles or is drained into another body of water, that water evaporates, then, a cloud forms, et cetera; a pine tree grows, pine cones blossom, the cones descend, the cones are buried, a pine tree is born, the pine tree grows, et cetera; and, civilizations arise, civilizations thrive, civilizations stagnate, civilizations crumble, giving room for new civilizations to arise, et cetera. 

This process appears to occur throughout the whole of reality, it is observable on Earth, it is observable in the cellular structures of life, it is observable in biological decomposition, it is observable in the chemicals within the material structures that constitute all natural structures, and it is observable in cosmic processes (supernovas, the formation of solar systems, even the orbit of objects around bodies of greater mass); the circuitous nature of reality is evident.  What is also interesting is that this circuitous process is constrained by the linear process, by being constrained by the Mind that knows and is aware of reality as reality.

However, what we can acknowledge about this apparent contradiction is that reality is neither circuitous nor linear.  The process to identify reality as reality is linear, but that process, as a matter of fact, is circular, and because we exist, any subject that exists as a part of the structure of reality, that subject, we, must continually engage in that linear process so that, over time, it merely appears circuitous; the linear process is circuitous and the circuitous process is identified through the linear process; both depend on the other and are reflected through the other.  For example: “X is X.” Instantiated and a potential in that premise is also, “X could not be X.”  Therefore, “X is either X or X is not X.”  Since, “X is X, X cannot be not X and is, thus, X.”  In this example we start with “X,” we ascend, determining whether “X is X or not,” we realize “X is X,” the descent, and thus conclude with, “X is X”; we end the linear process where we began it, just as is observed in the examples provided above: the rain, the pine tree, civilization’s ascent and descent, cellular reproduction, biological decomposition, cosmic development, and its functions.  If it was, “not X,” even then, instantiated in our first premise is the potential that, “X is not X,” and thus, if “X were not X,” we would still be ending where we began, as the beginning holds the potential for both the affirmative of the premise and its negation; it is only when we try to reconcile the two potentials that we begin the ascent and follow with the descent, ending, where we began, with either of the two potentials.

Without the capacity to observe this apparent process in reality, humanity, animals, and plants would not be capable of inferring certain consequences from particular conditions, either latently or actively.  Though self evident, this circuitous structure within reality is often overlooked, disregarded, forgotten, and then, it rears its head once more.  This process ultimately exemplifies pattern recognition; not merely analog pattern recognition, but discrete pattern recognition.

As a result of this capacity to recognize patterns, and nature’s intrinsic aspect of circuity (independent of any observer within reality), what can be said of reality is that it has consistency, even if it is abstracted, even if it is not graspable, as without consistency, without a circuity of cause and effect, there would be nothing but chaos; and as there is consistency and circuity, it is eminently reasonable to infer that reality is consistent, otherwise, all methods that humanity have acquired to interact with reality that can be considered to be methods of engineering would be defunct, no such category would exist, and no theories or scientific models that could lead to such methods would be possible.  Since all of the above are, reality must be consistent.

What can ultimately be concluded by the consistency of reality is that, within it, chaos is an utter illusion, an aspect of our, or any subject within reality’s, inability to recognize the pattern that is being observed.  What is even more intriguing about the notion of chaos is that it is paradoxical.  If there are things that are ordered and, then, there are things that are chaotic, those things that are said to be chaotic must be recognized as being chaotic, they must have — paradoxically — the structure of being chaotic, the consistent nature of being chaotic, the pattern of chaos.  Therefore, what this means is that nothing can be said to be chaotic, merely unconstrained, and undefined.  Given the proper framework or mechanism to recognize the pattern in what is assumed to be chaos, it becomes its counterpart: order.  Thus, chaos is merely an illusion of our observations and our inability to constrain, as subjects in reality, that which is in reality that is not reconcilable, or fully manifested.  What is exemplified in Figure 3 is the mechanism through which chaos is manifested into order, or that which is like order.

Figure 3:

N = Thesis

-N = Antithesis

R = Synthesis, or Thesis

In Figure 3, what is represented is both the circuitous nature of reality and the linearity of reality. Through a thesis, the affirmative of a position, its antithesis, the negative to the affirmative position, and a synthesis, the proceeding affirmative that follows from the interaction between the thesis and antithesis, a new thesis evolves, an affirmative of a position is postulated and established over time. What is interesting about this process is that it follows, both, the linear process and the circuitous process. This synthesizing process has an ascent, which includes its growth and proliferation (it’s flourishing), is challenged by a stasis, its antithesis, which results in the original thesis’s descent, ending in a synthesis, which, though seemingly different from the original thesis, is still a thesis, still that which was challenged by the antithesis in the first place, though only qualitatively different. E.g.: the Thesis (Thesis X is Thesis X); the Antithesis (Antithesis ~X is Antithesis ~X); the Conflict (X is X v ~X is ~X; since Thesis X is Thesis X and cannot be Antithesis ~X, Thesis X is Thesis X); Synthesis as Thesis (Thesis X is Thesis X).

In the circuitous model, we can take the notion of the thesis as the catalyst, the impetus for the process's motion, as thesis can best be described as the affirmative of that which, actually, exists; antithesis, as the mirror to that which actually exists, that which seemingly exists. When taken as the catalyst, the thesis, the affirmative for any given thing, can be said to promote the expansion of its being. When the expansion of its being has reached a point of stasis, then — there — it is subject to the rise of its an-catalyst, that which will serve as the entropic force to decrease the thesis’s proliferation, the spread of that thing’s existence. When recognized as the an-catalyst, the antithesis would potentially decrease the proliferation of the thesis, especially in the thesis’s static state. This concludes in the formation of a new thesis, reflecting the original thesis, which begins the catalytic process once more and, when that process enters a period of stasis, begins the an-catalytic process, ultimately concluding how it began.

The clearest example of this process is the fractal. Mathematically, fractals are easy to understand: a fractal is a process where all aspects of a locus of generation reflect that locus of generation. Reality has been observed as being fractal, mathematics, which is best known as the language of reality, makes use of fractals without end; and, in fact, is built upon them, as will be shown in Figure 4. Without fractals, many of the patterns that we observe in reality would not be observable, as they would lack a consistently structured form to be able to be discerned; yet, finally, without our observations of reality, as has already been stated, the structure of reality would still exist, and since those structures exist independent of our observations of them, and interact, independent of our observations of them, and by that interaction, must have a consistent pattern that allows for their interaction, they would still be fractal like; they would still be mathematically constrained. What this means about the synthetic process is that it is not only a tool that humans make use of to expand and challenge their static notions about reality, but also, is reflective of reality and our observations of reality; the synthetic process exists independent of what we make of reality, how we frame reality, or what we think of reality.

This synthetic process is, then, how objects come into our reality as chaotic, are challenged, defined, and ordered, only for that ordered structure to be challenged once more, to endure a period of chaos, and thus, enter into order, again, as the synthesis, which is reflective, as stated above, of the originally constrained chaos, of that which was ordered, of the thesis.

What the synthetic model ultimately means for the circular model, and the linear model, is that the synthetic model affirms the circular model by reflecting its process, and must be the case; for, what is self-evident in the circular model is that it must be the case (unless mathematics is invalid, as the invalidity of the circular model would invalidate the synthetic model on the basis of fractalization), and for it to be the case, it cannot not be the case, and thus, reflects the linear model by being the case, rather than not being the case; i.e., it is that it is:

i.e.

The Synthetic Model is reflected in Mathematics.

The Synthetic Model is conditioned upon the Circuitous Model and the Linear Model.

For Mathematics to be the case, the Circuitous Model and the Linear Model must be true.

Mathematics is the case, therefore, the Circuitous Model and the Linear model are true.

Figure 4: Representation of Formal Development as Linear, Circuitous and Synthetic

A: Void

B: Point

C: Line Segment

D: Square

E: Cube

In Figure 4, we see how mathematics reflects the preceding models, particularly the Synthetic Model. Anyone privy to geometry should be aware that, when beginning to do anything, they must start with a blank space, they must start with void, or, even, the potential for something to arise from nothing. That potential, then, in figure 4, is defined into a point, whilst still existing around that point. What can be said of this, in so far as it reflects the circular, linear, and synthetic model, is that the void must have been the case and could not have not been the case (the linear model); then, the void (the thesis) was challenged by what could have been the case (that it did not have to be), which results in the synthesis, the new thesis (the point), which still contains within it the void, the potential for something to arise from it, even if it is no longer just void. This reflects the circular model by beginning where it began, with void, it proliferates, it stultifies, and then remains, enveloping the point. The process in Figure 4 then continues when the point becomes a line segment. The point is clearly a point (the linear model and thesis), the point stultifies and is challenged by the notion that it doesn’t merely have to be the case (the antithesis), resulting in a new concept, the line segment (the synthesis), which contains within it both the void that began the process and its progeny, the point (fractalization, the circular model, and the synthetic model). Then, the line segment is multiplied, its like, connected together, forming a regular quadrilateral or a square. This square is formed via the thesis of the line segment, challenged by the antithesis, and is synthesized into the square, in the same fashion as it was above; it also contains within it void, the point, and the line segment (fractalization, the circular model, and the synthetic model). Finally, Figure 4 concludes in a cube. The cube is constituted by points, line segments, the square, and the void that started the entire process; it is synthesized into being through, first, acknowledgement of the square (the thesis), its proliferation, its stultification, which results in the antithesis (that it is not all it could be), and concludes in its synthesis, the manifestation of the cube.

If we are to take Figure 4 as a representation for the Synthesis of Form, which also includes the other two preceding models, what can be concluded about our observations of reality is that, our subjective notions of those things that are in reality are perpetually subject to change. Every form following the last will build upon its predecessor, every form following, equally so, and every form preceding the parent form, contains within its structure the potential for all other proceeding and preceding forms. What this ultimately results in, what this ultimately means about the nature of reality is tantamount to the unveiling of all philosophies and sciences; i.e., they are all describing the same thing, in different ways, all representative and like reality, all telling a truth about reality, even if that truth is not fully grasped, articulated, properly defined for use, or aware of its own faults, by the one professing it to be the case.

What this all means is that reality, as it actually stands, for us, is indefinitely definable, yet, in essence, indefinable by us; the change we observe and engage in is a product of our interacting with reality and not how reality actually stands; for that which is without definition lacks change, as it would go nowhere, it wouldn’t move. Thus, if change is a product of our interacting with reality, and not how reality actually stands, reality, as it actually stands, is changeless; reality qua reality then is eternal, it is not subject to change, it is timeless; our observations of it only imply change. We see the rain cloud, it rains, a puddle forms, the water evaporates, another cloud appears, and, then, that cloud becomes a rain cloud. The difference in the structure of the rain cloud is superfluous, the difference in the location in space and time of the rain cloud is superfluous, the rain cloud still exists qua the rain cloud, and because the change that has occurred has occurred as a result of the observations of one that is embedded in the structure of that change, because the cycle, if it doesn’t occur on earth, will occur elsewhere, it is timeless, is changeless, is indefinite, and thus, not subject to actual change. Then, reality, for it to be constrained in any such capacity, must be constituted within a mind external to itself. That is, reality must be formalized in the mind of a being that exists outside of reality, which is observing reality, and through its observations of reality, grasping and constraining reality qua reality as it stands, not as it appears to the subject within its structure; i.e. a mind capable of grasping and constraining reality in what appears to be, for us, its indefinable state; to know the cycle of rains as the cycle of rains and not be caught up in any one instantiation of that cycle. This mind must also have the capacity to be aware, for it cannot merely be intellect, as we might find in a cat, or in a dog, or in a mouse, no — it must have awareness, it must have the capacity to recognize reality as reality, the processes of reality as the processes of reality, independent of any particular observation of reality, for reality to be reality. Because this mind constrains reality by its observation of it, knows reality as reality, not as it seems, and because within reality, processes occur that subjects and objects of its structure endure, that mind must also have a power, a force, or better yet, spirit — an animating force that permeates reality and gives it the appearance of change to the subject within it, as the subject within it cannot deny that there is something moving through it and reality, if it is subject to change, and it is. Such change is defined as, the manifestation of actual potential actualities into manifest actualities, which always are, will and have existed in the potential that is already manifest. Therefore, there is something moving through reality, best known as spirit, which demonstrates the eternal nature of its form by instantiating it in a circuitous process that always leads back to itself, and thus, remains changeless. This mind contains within it the truth of reality, the force through which reality functions and began, and that which betters us through our understandings of that which it holds as itself, i.e. reality qua reality, the truth, which gives us the permutations and preceding potentialities evident in Figure 4 throughout our, or any model of reality.

First Argument:

Change is an aspect of our observations of reality as subjects of reality.

Reality qua reality, to us, is indefinable.

That which is without definition can be said to be indefinite, infinite, without end.

Indefinite, infinite things can not change.

Reality, being truly indefinite to us, cannot change.

That which is without change is eternal, Reality is eternal.

Second Argument:

Things appear to change to subjects within the structure of Reality.

But Reality is eternal.

The changes in reality (e.g. the rain) are cyclical, ending where they began.

For something to end where it began is to say that it did not change.

That which is without change is Eternal.

The changes of reality, being cyclical, affirm the eternal nature of Reality.

Third Argument:

For Reality to be Reality, it cannot be constrained by any observer in Reality, as any observer in reality cannot fully constrain Reality.

For Reality to be constrained as Reality, for Reality to be known as Reality, for the Cyclical Processes of Reality to be the Cyclical Processes of Reality, they must be consciously constrained by an intellect that exists outside of the Framework of Reality, as nothing in Reality can constrain Reality qua Reality.

Therefore, Reality qua Reality is constrained by a Mind outside of Reality; as Reality, being rational, could not be rational if it lacked an intellect to make it rationally comprehendible, even if, to the subjects within it, it is ultimately indefinable; it still has to be Reality qua Reality, which requires intelligibility for it to exist, and it does; therefore, it's still intelligible even if, to its subjects, it is indefinable.

Fourth Argument:

Processes occur within Reality.

These processes are cyclical in nature.

Every initiatory thesis of a cycle can conclude in a synthesis that results in a development to the original thesis, yet still contains within it that original cycle and thesis.

This would require an initial force which catalyzes the synthetic process, as without that force, the potential of the thesis could not be manifested into being from its mere potentiality, which already exists as an actuality in that potentiality.

This initial force which causes this synthetic process to occur through reality, as it is the cause for the appearance of change to the subjects within reality, is Spirit.

The processes that occur within reality are manifestations of the Spirit of the Mind containing Reality, as those processes could not have been initiated, could not have — first — been acted upon, from within the system, nor known to be those processes as those processes from any subject within the system, as all subjects within the system cannot know such processes as those processes.

Thus, for the synthetic process of reality to occur, a force must be moving through reality, initiating the synthetic processes; and as those synthetic processes are occurring, there is a force moving through reality initiating those processes; i.e. the Spirit.

Conclusion:

Reality is Eternal; the Eternal Nature of Reality is only known to a Mind that exists outside of Reality; the Processes that occur within Reality that manifest the potential instantiations of Reality into actuality, from their actual potential actuality, occur through the will of the Mind that constrains Reality, i.e. the Spirit; through this Mind, any subject in reality may glean truth about reality, for their own wellbeing, i.e. to improve their biological fitness, to avoid harm, and to learn from harm and give it meaning. 

Figure 5:

A: The Mind that Constrains Reality

B: Man within Reality

Z: The desire to become better than that which constrains reality, to overcome reality, to control reality by redefining it for their benefit.

X: The suffering, torment, and pain that results from their desire for control over that which, to them, as subjects of reality, is beyond their grasp.

In Figure 5, there is a representation for the mimetic cycle that occurs between Humanity, Man, and the Mind that constrains reality. In this process, Mankind desires to best this Mind, which constrains reality qua reality. This process perpetuates Mankind’s, Humanity’s suffering, in so fas as, despite the truth that could be ascertained by Man from the Mind that actually constrains it, Mankind chooses to act as though he has overcome an insurmountable obstacle, owns the truth, and in doing so, endures suffering, pain, and torment; i.e. Hell. No matter how much Mankind thinks they know about reality, no matter how sure they are that what they’ve received is from the Mind that constrains reality (when it’s actually not), no matter how much they wish to rid themselves of the truth of reality when they think they can control it through their self-made narrative, they cannot, they will not, and as such, when reality rears its ugly head, when reality bares its teeth like a lion, they endure a hell of their own making.

No fact doles this out more so than Mankind’s desire to create systems of control, as the desired end of such systems is precisely the root of their suffering, and their subjects suffering. When such systems arise, they inculcate their subjects into their system via a process that polarizes them from reality, in so far as they become incapable of grasping reality, serving as slaves to the system that indoctrinated them; the system, then, when any number of subjects do not fit its mold, must scapegoat those subjects for that system to remain stable; over time, the number of subjects that become resistant to the system’s ideological pathogens increases, as would occur for most pathogens; when this happens, the system has more subjects that are disobedient to its commands than it can handle and, as a result, collapses. Historically, every autocratic bureaucracy, up to this point, has endured this process, as the flaw in such systems is endemic to the system’s aim: control: e.g. U.S.S.R., National Socialist Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, the French Empire, the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ming Dynasty, et cetera; every time, from within, or without, such systems collapse, because they lack the capacity to realize and deal with all factors that can emanate from reality, or Mankind’s observations of reality, because they think they’ve grasped reality qua reality, or believe that, with their model of reality, they can overcome it and make it theirs. As such, reality belongs to no Man, no subject of its structure, but only to that which knows it as it is, constrains, within its intellect, the processes that occur within it, and, is the source from which things may be comprehended in reality; i.e. the Mind that constrains reality.

Figure 6:

A: The Mind that Constrains Reality

B: Man within Reality

C: Reality qua Reality

Z: The desire to become better than that which constrains reality, to overcome reality, to control reality by redefining it for their benefit, according to their assumptions of reality.

X: The suffering, torment, and pain that results from their desire for control over that which, to them, as subjects of reality, is beyond their grasp.

Y: Man learning from reality

V: Man accepting their assumptions of reality as the case.

P: The Mind constraining and defining reality

Q: Reality Reflecting the Mind that constrains it as itself.

In Figure 6, there is a representation for how the above process occurs. What is added onto Figure 5 is “C,” Reality qua Reality, “Y,” Mankind’s acquisition of knowledge from reality, “V,” Mankind using and accepting their knowledge of reality as the ultimate model of reality, “P,” the means by which reality is constrained by the Mind that fully constrains reality qua reality (i.e. its power, or spirit), which occurs through cyclical synthesis, and “Q,” reality reflecting the Mind that constrains it, so that reality qua reality can be considered to be, independent of its accidental affects, like the Mind that is able to constrain it, itself. What is important to recognize about reality is that it is not reality that is at fault for Mankind’s suffering, for their hellish existence, nor is it the Mind that constrains said reality either, but their own desires, their hubris, and their own will to dominate and control reality, to shape it in their own image. In this process, Mankind believes they can determine what will come next with certainty, as though they can divine the future; that they are the pinnacle of light and the source of wisdom and truth in the world, rather than letting that remain in the hands of reality as reality and the Mind that constrains reality; and, in doing so, demonstrate that they have subordinated themselves to their desires, rather than sublimating those desires into something meaningful, something purposeful.