The Paradox of the Point

The paradox of the point is that, though defined, in the limiting instance of analysis it coincides with nothingness. By definition, a point has no extension, or it would consist of other points, so it is entirely a concept, an instant affective idea form, represented as a contextually defined entity. Thus, a point can be demonstrated, as say, the point of intersection of two lines or curves, or a decimal point, a pin point, or a full stop. When I draw a line, it is observed to start at one point and end at another, and is theoretically composed of points along its entire length, such as, between which, mark off intervals of length. A full stop on this page can be said to represent a point; which, through a magnifying glass, reveals it to be a blob, and no longer a point.  But in the scale of this page it realises the instant affective idea form of a point. In effect, the affective idea form point exceeds the reality of what is perceived, and from which it is referentially derived. In itself, apart from the instant affective contextual identity it realises as a concept, the point does not exist.
The instant affective idea form of a point is the type of all idea form realisation of things perceived. Anything identified is as the contextually sustained ‘point’ of its affective identity in instant idea form now realisation of it. The instant affective idea form of a point is of the same kind as the instant affective idea form of the sun or an inkpot on my table. To attempt to analyse any identified object as to what constitutes it, is, in each successive stage of analysis, to merely identify what are instant affective idea forms of the component parts. For example, to analyse what constitutes the instant affective identity of the sun is to identify other instant affective idea forms such as gas and heat and light forms, whose characteristic is that they are like referentially retained as instant affective idea forms or point identities as fixed concepts.
If one scientifically analyses an identified thing, say a piece of wood, referentially retained in instant affective idea form, it is reducible to cells that themselves are further reducible to complex molecules, and so on, at each stage the percept being identified and retained as an instant affective idea form: cell, nucleus, carbohydrate, carbon atom, electron… Modern physics is constantly finding deeper and deeper substrates to what on the surface, and there identified as to instant affective idea form, exists; but at some stage is ultimately left in suspense, be it the strings of string theory or a quark of quantum mechanics, which, by nature of its being defined at all, is further reducible; even to the limit of a point singularity, so called, from which the universe is supposed to have originated, but which ultimately eludes definitive analysis. The end point one can predict is precisely when infinity of analysis meets absolute nothingness. And even then there is an instant affective idea form or fixed concept retained of nothingness that defines it. This is not to concede that the end point of analysis is nothingness, for we cannot be sure of what nothingness itself consists – and it must consist of something if something emerges from it; conceptually, though, nothingness is the idea form point of void of existence.
The affective idea form or concept that identifies a pebble to my perception has not the material composition of a pebble. I know the pebble to consist of complex atoms and molecules of chemical elements and compounds -- but the fact these are instant affective idea forms, too, is incidental to the instant referential idea form I retain of the perceived pebble. In the instant affective idea form of the pebble is comprised an idea form of its materiality, its size, smoothness, roundness, its weight; it would indicate the pebble to be an idea form within its affective context of existence, as a rightness realisation, and within which it affects and is affected by all other contextual objects, in the contextual affection for rightness realisation, ultimately that of the creative principle.

Science is restricted in all its analysis of matter to perception of what is a contextually defined affective idea form object, realised as to point identity, referentially retained as an instant affective idea form. A virus is perceived through an electron microscope and identified, and retained referentially in mind as an instant affective idea form, a fixed concept or point identity: analysis of its anatomy is in a context of that perception of it as an affective idea form, where components are observed to affect and be affected and retained as instant affective idea forms of point like simplicity.
The photon of light might be considered to be the primary indivisible concept in creation, since it fulfils God’s initiation of the material creation as chronicled in Genesis, ‘God said: Let there be light…‘. But the photon is point identified and referentially retained as an instant affective referential idea form in the mind of the perceiver. As an existing form it is further reducible into what makes it a photon, and this reduction referred to in instant affective referential idea forms in now realisation, till infinity of analysis meets absolute nothingness as an instant affective idea form.  But, in its contextual existence, it is implicitly the point affective idea form realisation of a creative principle.  Note, ‘affective idea form’ implies of the affection of the creative principle for rightness realisation as a point identity in enactment of process in which all forms come to exist as part of that process.
Even the now of realisation is retained conceptually as an instant affective referential idea form, and can be reduced further in duration, to an infinite degree, where like the point, or any other existing thing identified as to idea form, ‘now’ is virtually coincident with its non-existence as an affective idea form. The instant affective idea form of the now of realisation is one that defines present perception. There is in the instant affective idea of now realisation the instant affective idea form of the whole of existence. Every experience is of an instant affective idea form realisation; and within subject affective now realisation all forms and time governed processes are retained as instant affective referential idea forms. Everything in the instant affective idea of now realisation is ultimately reducible to an instant idea form point realisation. Moreover, in the existence of all things identified in perception as to instant idea form in a process of manifestation there is implicitly the creative act of the creative principle in affection of rightness realisation.
The actual substance of existence is thus non-existent except inasmuch as it is realised in instant affective idea form in point identity as a contextual rightness realisation in the creative process enabled in the affection of the creative principle for manifestation of ‘that which is’ or 'rightness', ultimately the divine Rightness, as a point realisation. The creative principle alone has a point idea form realisation of ‘that which is’, ultimately, ‘He who is’, the divine Rightness, in affection of manifestation of which is the process of creation in which all forms are created as affective idea forms of rightness realisation.
Thus it is that the ultimate point identity that transcends nothingness is the divine Rightness, in divine affection of manifestation of which, in a context of absolute nothingness occasioned by God’s infinite existence, is the creative process, one in which the mutually affecting forms derive their point identity from the divine identity of Rightness.


More by :  R. D. Ashby

Top | Perspective

Views: 3636      Comments: 2

Comment Thanks for your comment. My reading, particularly in my maturity, is of an apologetic nature, since it is my belief I have consummate knowledge of truth through my faith in Jesus Christ, the Divine Rightness referred to in the article, though not there specified. If, as a Christian, I do read and study further, and I do, and thank you in passing for the suggested reading, it is to find out how others think in relation to what I know as the truth, and in doing so to argue my case for the truth; as I do against the theory of evolution by natural selection, which the above article corrects as an affective process of rightness realisation by the Divine creative principle, manifested in the practical reality of the conceptual identity of all forms, identity being contextual rightness realisation; thus giving a rational basis to what is otherwise an irrational concept of a mind not working, but denied, in what is an extremely intelligent organisation of matter as per the observational theory of evolution by natural selection.

08-Oct-2011 09:57 AM

Comment While I have little or no knowledge of the argument, your perspective reminds me of Buddhist philosophy. I wonder if you have read the English translations of the writings of Nagarjuna. The works of Bimal Chandra Matilal come to mind. I think you might find them to your taste, especially regarding the meaning of meaning and deeper epistemological matters. This is a mere courteous suggestion and not a criticism or judgment.
gaurang bhatt

Gaurang Bhatt
08-Oct-2011 08:09 AM

Name *

Email ID

Comment *
Verification Code*

Can't read? Reload

Please fill the above code for verification.