Introduction[]
Rather than a fictional construct like most articles here, this page will be talking about a hypothetical that we will call "The Absolute Truth of Everything". This hypothetical is more of an exploration rather than creative writing (Although it still somewhat is).
The name "The Absolute Truth of Everything" is the abstract notion of [The 4 Categories]
It is the notion that "Truth" is and can be described into 4 categories: The Subjective, Objective, Abjective, and Superjective.
The Subjective focuses on the subjective aspect of existence, of one's own consciousness.
The Objective focuses on external facts, of the reality outside one's own mind. It focuses on ontology and meontology.
The Abjective focuses on the existence of something that is real, something that is neither truth, falsehoods, and traditional ontological & meontological categorization.
Superjective focuses on both The Objective and Subjective.
Paradoxes on The Absolute Ontological Scale[]
To better understand The Abjective and Superjective, one must first understand paradoxes. For paradoxes of the lower scale, one can take the example of "This statement is false", which is a self-referential paradox that defiles what it means to be "true or false". As for paradoxes of the higher scale, we can take a lowercase "greg" for an example. "greg" has a special talent. He is a living anti-principle, but his anti-principle acts upon all, even itself. As such:
"If greg is greg, greg exists" = greg's Principle
"If greg is greg, greg does not exist" = greg's Anti-principle
"If greg is greg, greg exists" = greg's Anti-anti-principle
This repeats itself infinitely, like a fractal, resulting in lowercase greg being in a state that is neither existent nor existent, as all actualizations and conceptualizations utterly fail to truly grasp greg's existence, as greg exists in a state that is completely detached from everything, truly transcending all things below it, excluding "The Absolute Truth of Everything".
In this article, this will be referred to as the "Logical Ineffability Argument", which logically explains the "existence" is ineffable constructs that is neither existent and nonexistent.
Infinite Transcendence Argument[]
Despite already transcending all of absolute nothing and everything, we can go further, as greg's Anti-Principle can be stretched to its limits.
Let us say, for instance:
greg transcending the "Logical Ineffability Argument" is the everything, while greg simply not transcending "Everything & Nothing" is false, and is simply another state similar to nothing & everything, arguing that just as nothing cannot truly be reached by Everything, only described by its outlines; Ineffability cannot be truly reached by everything simply because it is another state, which will be the nothing. Therefore, we can repeat the pattern infinitely, forming an infinite hierarchy of ineffable fractals, each one infinitely transcending each other.
Thus, with "The Absolute Truth of Everything", one can logically "conceptualize" a "thing" that is infinitely transcendent into infinite layers layered infinitely into each other in an infinite recursive loop of infinite transcendence.
It is with this logic that makes conceptualizing entities "beyond" "The Absolute Truth of Everything" especially difficult, as it can be argued that they are simply part of yet another layer to the infinite self-recursive, self-referential, infinitely repeating pattern of infinitely layered ineffable "transcendence".
To Be Beyond[]
As stated and explained above, one can illogically and paradoxically layer non-standard types of transcendance. Transcendances that simply do not fit under the typical understanding of transcendance. It is simply beyond all definition, logic, and more, yet somehow, we have found an abyss where the ineffable is. It is a gap in existence formed around logic, yet is, and persists to "be" in some way that does not follow Subjective nor Abjective truth.
To explore The Abjective is to view into the abyss where you can only define the outlines it leaves within the Subjective and Objective reality we exist within. Thus, to explore even further, you must first loosen the notions you hold, as it is only suited to explore Objective and Subjective truth, and not Abjective truth.
Defining The Outlines of An Ineffable Truth[]
Now, let's explore it further.
Imagine the function ∆ as one infinite instance of greg endlessly reenacting its own transcendance through the "Logical Ineffability Argument".
From this baseline, we can create ∆+1 as greg adding another single instance of transcending layers of Abjectivity, thereby descending further into its abyss.
Extending this further, we can make it even larger with ∆+ω which is greg doing loops of transcendance infinite times.
We can continue this process indefinitely until we reach "∆+ω+ω+ω+....", stacking infinities upon infinities. By that point, it's better to simply express it as ∆+∆. ∆+∆ completely transcends '∆+ω+ω+ω+...." by orders of magnitude unimaginable.
From there, we might imagine things like "∆+(∆+ω)" or "∆+∆+∆+∆+....", but we can go further than this through higher-order functions, which we can call T. T(0) would equal to ∆, T(1) would equal to ∆+ω, T(2) would equal to ∆+∆, and so on.
With that function, we can peer into deeper outlines of "the abyss" like T(100), T(T),
To illustrate:
- T(0) = ∆
- T(1) = ∆+ω
- T(2) = ∆+∆
- T(3) = ∆×∆
- T(4) = ∆^∆
- And so on
This function itself can be described by another function, which we can call R.
- R(0) = T(0)
- R(1) = T(∆)
- R(2) = T(T)
- R(3) = T(T(T(T(T....)
- And so on once again
We can repeat even this process infinitely with even higher order functions, yet all it does is simply define the outlines of Abjective Truth, which can simply not be reached by any definition.
Because from our outlining, all we have achived is see just how unsuited language, in any capacity (like math) fails to reach the truth. Because our language simply does not have the tools to describe "something" that is neither Objective, Superjective, or Subjective.
However, because of these outlines, we can see exactly just how vast it is, and what it simply "is not" and "is". In other words, we have created a superjective outline that can outline a scope that continually transcends ontological existence/nonexistence. It is for this reason that any proposition or conjecture simply fails to reach its "truth", because once again, our language is limited to only 1s and 0s (Existence & Nonexistence), and fails to keep up with th ineffable, which distinctly neither lacks or has any such quality, trait, or attribute.
2 Comments