/avesatanas/ - Hail Satan and All Ancients

To think about a thing is to not simply think about any single thing, but about a selection of things, which can then fluctuate and transition based upon associated relationships of (ex-)/(in-)clusivity. Even in those moments of nothingness, what one contemplates is a moment of something-ness, a space of Anti-ness, an ever-shifting variation of what is or what isn't. Thus, to think is not to simply think, but to envision an entire assemblage of (dis-)orderliness. In the spaces of being, we can therefore point to the aspects of spaces, or spatial conditional extensions which connect to a given lineage of potentia within any given variable. Even in the anchoring of finality, there exists a categorical quintessence.

Contemplatively, one can envision this signifies an eternity of momentariness. If every functionality has within itself an infinite potential, one can theoretically predict an entire system based upon any single conjunction. Akin to the infinite monkeys on a typewriter theoretical session, every moment has within itself an endless infinity of shifting variation. To think about a thing, therefore, is to align consciousness with conditional existential variations. Certain moments seem absolute. Yet even the surety of a moment is questionable, for if every moment is itself an extension of potential, then every being is itself an extension of Potentia. And if every being is an extension of Potentia, then the very concept of knowledge is uncertain, and only rests within the conditional elements of a certain specificity. What is true in this realm may not be true in another realm. To see truth, therefore, is to understand not truth, but a lineage of systems of relationships upon which truth is said to exist, a principle raised upon the skulls and bones of previous dissidence.

To know is to be certain that knowledge is, in itself, an uncertainty, but claimed through framing idealizations of perception into digestible formation. This is not to say that knowledge nor objectivity nor subjectivity exists- only that these conditional elements are, themselves, existent upon an eternal system of systems upon systems.

In the most basic categories, every function has, at minimum, three modalities of (non-)existence: the absolute, the negative, and the variance. We could call this, "The Is", "The Is-Not", and "The Could-be". If we were to give it a sign of sorts: A, Not-A, & A(V). Another label, the one most applicable, is that every modality can be labeled "True", "False", "Variance". One can note that every function operates out of this triadic operationality: A thing is, is-not, and can be. Another, more esoteric note one can make, is that every not-T is, conceivably, a form of variance, but an instance of Not-T is also one of modular certainty within any expression that recognizes T as certitude. Therefore, while a thing can be Is and Is-not, such as "This statement is false", a form outside of normative T, yet sharing F or also T, modifies itself towards variance. While it is a stretch to say every non-thing is therefore a variance, it can also be consistent with a modular expression that views every Not-Is as a state that is an extension of other conditions which would allow that state to exist in coherency given other situated vectors.

If we consider A to Z, one must conceive, most immediately, of -A, or Not-A. A is not B. So every B is a Not-A. C is not A. So every C is Not-A. While B & C exist as Not-A, they also exist as A-V. Thus, B-Z, on an individual relation, are Not-A, and on both individual and collective notions, A(V). Every expression must operate out of these three primary modes: A thing Is, Is-Not, Is-Type. Even if a thing Is and Is-Not or any mixture thereof, it is an Is-Type. To therefore contemplate any endeavor, one must consider that which one sees, that which one can envision, and that which one cannot see. Since every expression is a relational series of consequential conditional states, any action must be taken into consideration of these practicalities. Even if one commits irrationality to an action, there still exists a series of consequential relational conditions. The loss of logical constraints does not deter the existence of any function from having expression. Even the inexpressible has its function as that which expression is unable to pontificate.

Let us consider a box of laundry detergent with the name Laundo. Laundo is not laundry detergent; Lando is the nominative state included within the container whose name and properties relate to the concept of detergent. One looks upon Laundo and sees detergent. They associate "laundry" with "mixture". Laundo calls to the constraint - the container- the conception of assistance. This organizational extension is a formulation of the triadic state of Laundo:

-A. Laundo is not Laundry detergent

A. Laundo is a container for Laundry Detergent

A(V). Laundo is the name of the container which holds the mixture associated with the act of detergent.

Let us now take and consider the instance of the apple, once again. The property and conception of an apple is the spectrum of associative relations and particularization of the instance of an apple. The apple is not immediately the mythological item but the apple is also a mythological item and can have multiple mythological meanings. Surfacely, the apple, empty of humanoid postulations, is an object; a bear cares nothing about the theology of a fruit. Yet we look upon the apple and see the function (this will solve my hunger [so does the bear]), a form of function (this is the fruit offered by the Serpent[to the bear, that location/mechanic]), and a semantic tale (this is a product offered by a given value [to the bear: fruit delicious]) and every alternative state in relation to appleness. Thus, A is apple, Not-A is that which is not appleness (the bear tastes the fruit but cares nothing about any of our names we label it), and A(V) is our (non-)associative states of appleness.

Every impulse is therefore a predication of tension between potential. A particularization is a functionality of a field of variance; any given state is a conditional expression in which an identity can be ascribed. Any articulation about action becomes a formation of function between three conceptions of a state (to-do, to-not do, to-(not)do in different representations). Any actualization is therefore an expression of these qualitative and quantitative expressions. If we are then to consider Potentia as the function, the non-function, and the relational series of (non-)expressible variations, then every moment is, in actuality, a series of moments of dynamic elements; even a still painting, singular in motion or color or even depiction, has its measurements inherent within stucturalization and expression. A blank canvas is still A(blank), -A (not-measured), and A(V)(the canvas can be many). If every dynamic expression can be followed into a chain of potentiality, does this mean, on the surface, that the cosmos are deterministic, or, rather, does not this mean that every motion contains a fluctuation of triadic modality? A-B & -A-C does not necessarily mean that A-B must follow by reason of -A-C (in certain logical systems, most certainly); A-B means the field of relations between A and B which is not C, but could be C and anything to Z.