containment and instantiation

[Reciprocality]

We know that certain things/identities can belong to the category they do not instantiate, let me ask you this, are additions/conjunctions/coincidences/associations/correlations examples of this?

And if not, could there be real non-mathematical examples of this?

 

An example of a thing that belongs to the category it does not instantiate is a three dimensional mathematical object, it is insufficient to instantiate the fourth dimension yet it must belong to it.

If we can confirm or deny that every/some two conjunctive identities pertain to a category they do not instantiate this would have deep philosophical roots and implications specifically in relation to the century old duality of rationalism and empiricism.

Edited March 30 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

It could be said that spontaneity and self-hood are the most general kind (x) of thing which pertains to the kinds (y) of things they are on their own insufficient to instantiate.

That being reality.

[Reciprocality]

Whichever angle I come at things from I appear to end up in the same place over and over and over again, its wild.

[Reciprocality]

I am literally talking about the difference between essential and accidental attributes in the language of containment and knowledge

 

Essentiality maps to sufficiency, instantiation, division, rationalism, self-distribution, homogeneity, identity, linearity and simplicity. 

Accidental maps to insufficiency, inclusion, addition, empiricism, externalised-distribution, heterogeneity, non-identity, bifurcation and complexity.

In some ways and not in other ways.

 

It even maps to conservatism/liberalism and self/reality, but if you insist on thinking about these concepts for the complexities of the things they refer to then it will be impossible to draw the connections.

[Reciprocality]

If everything here sounds abstract without practical or pragmatic implications then consider the following:

If upon investigation we find that the self is not real what we may actually mean is that it does not instantiate the identity of reality, without that meaning that it is not a part of reality.

The sentence above written in purple can make the widely known concept of "no-self" more comprehensible, it highlights potential ambiguities contained in your conceptualisation of it.

Upon further analysis we may find that the identity of reality compliments the identity of the self, are you aware of how important it is to maintain a healthy complimentary relationship between the two? That the alternative is literally infantile?

The self is a part of something which everything except itself instantiates, yet none of the things that instantiates reality is possible without the self.

 

Have you not wondered why you can look in any direction, hear any sound, think any thought and find it all to be on some level identical?