posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:50 PM
Does identity move itself through the free association with change? Its obvious that in order for substance to change it must associate itself though
freely with its substance as think of it. Though to say that our thoughts and observations allow us to freely associate our thoughts with self is
rather new age and modern recreations of self. That self is merely an identity built upon the observations of its many changes as merely building
themselves upon the substance of the object it is though that object and change overcomes subject and redefines its identity as not being any more
then our understanding of it to be.
This to say the methodology of knowing something is in the thing perceived itself. Do we perceive this thing as something we object to or the
objective identity of the thing or is it merely something interchangeable from our own self relation as is. Merely our own reasons for believing it to
exist objectively are freely associating with it being subjective knowledge because it is possessed by the subject as an identity that consciously to
us changes but the fact that in our mental perception of this object existing as a subject is nothing more then an illusion created by the subject.
In our conscious observation as the leaves being green it would seem our perception or the interchangeable identity of green is responsible for it
being consciously observed as is. This is a mental illusion the change of green is not a potential by the fact it changes by being able to sustain
itself as a leave but that the tree allows for our minds to consciously realize that the change of the leaves color is changing or has the potential
to change as is because the reality of the tree changes all reality contained within it.
This though cannot be contained as merely an identity of the tree as a substance upon which the properties of the leaves on it changes it but rather
this change is an illusion not real. The idea of ourselves changing is nothing more then the consciousness being trapped in its understanding of the
identity of change to the actual of the substance or upon which change has the potential to express itself change does not exist but is merely an
illogical conclusion upon the identity.
In change alone subject becomes illogical how is it that change can freely associate with itself the subject but not exist subjectively as we know it
to be. It is only the present moment which presents to our consciousness of the reality of things as preceding our consciousness as not existing as we
observe it to be but as a movement. It is a free movement based not based on the distinction of say the object as we perceive as a property free to
associate itself as being but that this being is an illusion our distinction of colors are mental illusions that do not exist. Let me explain it is
universally accepted that all men that are living will die. Death becomes an associated with living for it is necessary to live to die but only
potentially to live comes from dying. Objectively dying does not exist because we essential our living or mode of change it is necessary to live first
to become known as dead.
This is where the subjective truth in our mind becomes illogical that is our perceptions are nothing more then projected by the reality surrounding
us and purely as an objective one but to say this is a natural fallacy. For upon this how is it possibly come to any conclusion upon anything as being
real other then that which we create in our consciousness that is change dictates identity is this at all a logical possibility. It is necessary to
say there must be a subjective truth to it for it even to become an empirical reality we experience. It is then necessary to say that while living it
is an illusion but essentially it is real though not as we consciously observe as living. That we are already dead but as objectively knowing it we
are consciously becoming dead in our conscious so thus it is necessary to know ourselves as subjectively existing or living but change expressed
through our lives only are possible to express if their is a subject to express through. For The possibility that we are living it is necessary that
we are essentially dead.
The same situation can be explained for the bachelor his identity as a bachelor is a human distinction we understand based on the fact that he is
merely just becoming married something he essentially is already is. Though it is necessary to say at the same time that as we see it conclusively
that is an illusion that the man is becoming married. It is the fact though that as individual, property, and object that we are distinctively stuck
in our human distinctions of our own change. We merely put a barrier on identity not as something that is changing but as something that relates to
the thing we identify which in our mind is concept. In order through for our distinctions freely associate themselves as being their must be a limit
to the free association with reality. This is to say that our illusion of things existing as real is because they do not necessarily relate to the
meaning of being subjectively real but only a part of it.
Suppose x+y=z it x and why equal change z equals identity. Z equates that the x and why are potentiality existed by being equal to z. Z is
essentially as an identity of itself is moving itself and becoming Z this means essentially that if we try to add as only itself it is Z it is
necessary though for x and why the properties to express their potential as for Z to be. Though Z is only becoming essentially through these
distinctions of x and y. It is then that x and y do not exist in Z as we observe it to be but essentially it is necessary realistically for Z to exist
as both x and y interchangeable though changing in so far as x and why change their property.X and Y are merely projected by Z existing. It is not
that X become Y or Y becomes X in Z as we know it but essentially they cease to exist no more then illusions and negated from the distinctions of
[edit on 21-5-2010 by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010]