Predisposition to Apodictical Knowlegde

Analytical Organon in Philosophy, few first basic principles

Univocal and equivocal are conceptions categorized as so. There are derivatives from those also. Substances are composite or primary. “Affections of mind” are called qualities, and although they might have contraries, same as we are in need to pay more of an attention to them more than to quantities, which can be only relative (“small,” “taller,” &c., which are not discreet, then), qualities such a an affection of a soul -- are prime substances in virtue, it makes a character sustaining from quantities, then, and more, is in case of a priority.

Such is a proposition for “naming” a figure of “mind images,” -- speech, continuous quantities, like time and space, are sharing boundaries, so we are alive in one shared environment(s). -- Harmony. -- Personal disharmony reveals inner perplexity of a soul, caused by disassociation of an imposition from the uncertain outside.

In orders of Propositions: All syllogisms of an imperfect quality is a statement perfect that they are wrong; for 1) Syllogism is either consisting from a contrary of a two ‘compromising statements’ (it’s as demonstrative), or 2) Dialectical inference, asked for result, a dialogue. -- Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

Actuality is prior in time-category, and: to potentiality, such then as substance of an actuality, dwells to pursue its potentiality (attempts) in finality of life, -- in orders of necessity. Necessity exists in actuality. And it’s prior to potentiality for which one needs to work upon and for. Fulfillment. -- Ockhham’s Razor principle foreseen by Aristotle.

Of more categories, and although condesively but in more proper exposed details are coming soon as possible, same before I approach samely much more to the topics of Propositions and Analytics of prior same as posterior (based upon experience), demonstrations, Interpretations, Topics, and so forth.

Without Opposites are no polars, and then no mediates

Of Forms and Ideas

Matter of a magnitude as to any assertion to differentiation of the soul, the affections of mind; qualities, are such a superior metaphysical prime moves, which could be judged by nobody else, but a true Universal Prime mover (in questions of universals: viz to the “actuality” and “potentiality” – same as to the ‘Universality,’ then; is in the first section of Organon’ beginning’ outlines), which is “simply not in necessity of moving.” -- To that particular part, I’ll come the alter time when elaborating ideas and notion of connections between spheres sustaining from 1) numeracy in Metaphysics, Physics, On the soul, also while seeking the value from the nature of the 2) Form of forms: mind, the idea, true essence. The prime substance.

Such is a the prime substance in virtue which makes ‘intermediate immediate’ –human being-- himself, who is in motion – but although he’s finite, he sees the idea as a substratum in pseudo-infinite “one,” where the “Ideal One” might be divided into (although seemingly indivisible) into ideal “2,” towards to infinity, which gives us the natural number, “3,” meta-ideal, then. But in full honor, in sake of precision the smallest number in metaphysical sense is number 2 for it’s being divisible into those “ideal” form-formal form-ideal numbers, sustaining of numerical sense of the prime mover, ‘One.’ One can then go to infinity, for as Zeno, Parmenides’ theory of old pre-Socratic methods, hearers were all alarmed by accuracy of infinity as in the fact “That One can be (and is) Many, and many is one.” -- The One, then, is the prime unmovable mover, the idea of a one prime Form, idea of an Absolute Good for which Socrates had not idea himself how to define specifically towards to something in concrete upon this world of phenomena as we know it. It is the sense of the Notion, not an integer, therefore.

Substance is then prime and composite, while some mentioned categories as for instance: Quality, Quantity (although not haranguing contraries, might be having relatives; correlatives, too, which are more to qualities-lead, and assumptions likely), time and space – here as to the factors of quantities as we had exploited when connected into common boundaries as connected so such, then it is timeless and boundless by the “General One,” undistinguishable.

When once, being pondered by a question why John Locke was inclined to bases in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding close to Aristotle, I assumed that the fact of not accepting “innate principles,” in human mind, things-in-themselves, the sense-certainty of within based upon non-existent self-reflection (as Hegel primordially would put it, then, when your self-reflective cogito recognize “The ‘itself-out-there,’ -- your input, you seek then yourself then, same as part of the “other,” -- for how far the inferrational goes, and same as the distinction form each between and towards to each, is upon us all; the task of culture, I personally presuppose) – his “Tabula Rasa,” of “Things not to be and to be at the same time,” then as impossible set; was the clue-key meaning argument. Liebnitz’s response was heading to Plato’s world of ideas of the never recognizable notions towards to spiritual atoms of Monads.

Then the locomotion is the kernel and force of nature, refutation and sophisma, shall be then a part number three along with an additional from previous works added to my during my personal journey when reading Bollingen Series of Aristotle’s pleasantly intruding, and for me, an encouraging collection of Oxford Rendering via this Princeton edition set of two volumes.

Additional Notes:

If proposition (‘belonging’ – in variability, and in general meant, a concept by itself), is possibly suddenly --“given,” -- & remains affirmative, and possibility under law of comprehensive universality, & then the major “Categorical Imperative,”… (-- Concerning the essence of will as an eternal maxim of your obligation for life-matter, to the “given possibility, as ‘chances allow.’ “ -- Not only an allusion towards I. Kant presently, I mean, but, in general), …is negative, then all possible deductions are not realizable to put forth. (Existence, or even a simple statement, &c.)

If one proposition is universal and the other particular in a proposed syllogism; & then when both are affirmative; or, when the universal is negative, such the particular available is negative. -- The affirmative is universal. It cannot be there any “opposite;” for: That’s a definition of an absurdism & irrationalism a la Reductio ad impossible, simply. Indefinite or particular; no deduction will be possible in those cases.

If the affirmative is necessary – it is in the Universals, and always: A possible negative is such as inferred, not oddly in a sense of syllogism, and logic overall; but: Rule is that the law is then when no mankind can possibly rule for themselves, but God, because inner perplexity within yourself manifests confusion out from a touch-point with the Universals, so then we are naturally depersonalized, dissociated, and no stable point remains, for we leave alone one sane intellect and mind off from the plurality, then only the God is available for pursuits; otherwise who denies “All for sake of his own pleasure or engagements with self-absorption,” &c., seeks himself only, and fails in delusion of his own trap by being intwined into a game of its own principle(s).