[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: anton.gif (1.97 MB, 640x360)
1.97 MB
1.97 MB GIF
A basic morpheme is a morpheme the meaning of which cannot be explicated by any other morphemes. If a language has a collection of morphemes that can be fully explicated by another collection of morphemes within the language, and we have the option to choose which of the two sets a hypothetical interpretant is capable of basically correlating to the qualia of the morphemes, then it is arbitrary which set we choose since either can be understood from the other. But this implies that all the morphemes in each set are manifolds, and thus none of them are truly basic morphemes if the interpretant possesses the capability to create new morphemes for the monads he perceives, as the monads perceived by this interpretant would not be named at all within the language if it consisted of only these two sets. It must be made obvious that in a language with morphemes for any potentially existent qualia, there are infinite basic morphemes, because there are infinite monads or potential qualia and a monad is not what it is relative to any other thing, thus it cannot be explicated in terms of any morphemes besides the morpheme correlated to it. This is phenomenologically observed in the utter irreconcilability of the visual stimuli and tactile stimuli, and though the stimuli pick up associations that can lend them a synesthetic quality, these associations are not essential to the monadic character of the qualia as they are perceived by us, whether it can be broken down into constituents or not, for even if a qualia can be explicated in terms of a manifold from the perspective of one interpretant but not from the perspective of another, then the latter interpretant still experiences it as a monad and therefore it exists as a monad potentially (note that an interpretant who can break the qualia we experience as monads down into manifolds is possibly present within our own subconscious). Thus we label these qualia "discrete." Now, it is clear that a relation can itself be named, that is, correlated to a morpheme. If a hypothetical interpretant in possession of a hypothetical infinite morphology is assumed, that is, one who can cognize and name every potential qualia, whether it be a color perceived by humans or a color perceived only by the mantis shrimp, then is every relation in his language explicable in terms of basic morphemes, or will some relations have to be correlated to basic morphemes? Suppose that no relation possesses a basic morpheme in an infinite language. Then what is a relation? For clearly, relations will not be distinguishable from nouns and verbs, if they are to be built from them in the infinite language. Yet how can you build a relation from nouns and verbs if you will have to relate them to build anything at all?
The difficulty is that relations are not monads, but must be built from monads, when only a manifold can connect monads. Thus, it must be possible that a manifold is self existent because you cannot construct a manifold if manifolds do not already exist. Now, suppose that a relation has a basic morpheme. It must, then, be a monad, since it is not explicable in terms of anything but itself. How, then, is a manifold cognized as a monad in this case? It is because the relation becomes a monad through manifold self relation. A monad is that which is what it is not relative to any other thing. A relation is a manifold that is what it is not relative to any other thing because it is what it is relative to itself. A relation that can be cognized monadically is called a medium. A medium is a qualia that defines a relation on itself, which we can call in, such that whenever a thing is said to be in the medium, it becomes capable of entering into a manifold of relations defined on the medium. Transcendental Time and Transcendental Space are the primary relations that are cognized monadically by the human brain. The doctrine of media clearly shows that only substances exist, since relations have themselves been shown to be primary substances in a hypothetical infinite language, and been given a mechanism to exist as manifolds and thereby exercise their relatory power while still being cognized as monads. Anyone who grasps the full extent of the doctrine of media can reach no other conclusion than that all manifolds are monads and all monads are manifolds and that manifolds and monads are both self-existent. Therefore, the universe exists in a unified dualism of Absolute Manifoldicity, where every potential thing exists at once in infinite relations to every other thing, and Absolute Monadicity, where only one thing exists. To say that everything is infinitely related to everything else is to say that everything is dependent on everything else, and there are no prior or posterior essences. But to say that only one thing exists is precisely to say that if you removed any part of the one thing it would no longer be itself at all and therefore would no longer be self-existent, which is exactly the same as saying that everything is a conditioned entity, because to say everything is conditioned is to say that everything is conditioned by everything else. An Absolute Manifold where everything is mutually essential is an Absolute Monad.
If you work less than 100 hours per week lower your tone when talking to me

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.