Is Concept "transcendentally" a circle
? that being a two-dimensional metaphor
/sign for unification To conceive is to take in
. To take in is in most cases also to leave out.
To abstract is to negate the particulars involved in order to synthesize essence.
We conceive a horse. We associate certain qualia with this horse and the rest
with not-horse. Pretty simple.
But was is the concept of concept? How were abstractions abstracted? That
was a leap of self-consciousness. Draw a circle around "justice" "truth" "friendly" "hidden," etc.
Now label this circle/concept Abstraction. And sure enough, at some point what all these abstractions have in common will manifest. Or were
manifested by means of this circumscription
...and circumscription is a two-dimensional metaphor for conceptualization. (To tie in geometry and spatial intuition with the transcendental concept.)
Number is actually purified concept, or negative concept.
Number is transcendental/eternal. Logos is spatial as well as
transcendental. Words are ones that get dirty, absorb qualia and other words. Logos is the intersection of time and space.
The spatial/qualia/metaphorical/analogical nature of logos is what makes it less precise than number
. Transcendental space is analog. Transcendental concept is digital.
Therefore pi. Therefore Zeno's "paradoxes."
If Logos is a zero, an encircling unity, then number is a 1, which is a vertical line, which does enclose space.
A word is the number one (the one number) gutted and stuffed with qualia and hyperlinks to other words. Negative theology (including newfangled positronic theology) is the gutting of words, in order to reveal the transcendental number which is experienced as a numen, as "transcendence," which is only a feeling, only music.
Man cannot transcend
the transcendental. Else we defile the truth with paradox. reconstructo is not, despite appearances, a mystic. Philosophy is the religion of science
, and therefore the science of religion.
1 = 0 = i