A common notion in atheist communities in regards to the gods concept via-a-vis believers is the fire insurance policy of believers’ sincere belief in God. Why even think this is the case?

Principally, it is grounded in a sense of unfairness or lack of fair play. Most people in the theist communities hold the beliefs for the same reasons others hold those beliefs. Because they believe that they are true.

In some more sophisticated speaking, they consider the beliefs justified and true. True so as to match some reality of the world. Justified so as to have good reasons for holding the belief in the first place.

I see no contradiction in the holding of a justified true belief and thinking something is true, while being unfairly treated by others. A thought to be justified true belief can be false and individuals can be treated unfairly, even cruelly, by ideological opposition.

To be fair to theists, as well as to give a tip of the hat to most atheists and agnostics, there is, generally speaking, a fair and comprehensive representation of the opposition’s positions on a wide smattering of topics.

The issues come in a mis-representation of the opposition. Let’s take, for example, the caricature of the atheist community as Satanic child molesters in service of Gog and Magog. Does this help in any way? Is this an accurate characterization of the generic atheist position?

Same with the field puppet on a post of the generic agnostic as a wishy-washy atheist without the guts of the generic atheist’s convictions. It’s all of a piece of the man of steel fought while in the presence of Kryptonite, turned to straw in other words.

Even amongst the most literalist of the fundamentalists, they will view the idea of the insurance policy theology as ridiculous. Where, God isn’t neither life insurance nor fire insurance. In that, to the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth as a means by which to only save a life, it is minimally satisfying to the heart and soul.

Indeed, when taking the idea of the life insurance policy theology, the idea is that there is, somehow, a way in which to declare oneself a Christian as well as propose oneself as a forgiven one no matter what one does.

In general, they will view the choice to become a Christian as a kickoff to the football game rather than the game. You can start in the game. The coach can have the plays of the game for a guaranteed win laid out.

Yet, you can quit the game or fail to follow rules even after the start of the game. Here, we a similar situation in terms of a fire insurance idea about theology. Obviously, Christians want to avoid Hell.

If you believe in Hell, of course, you want to avoid the worst possible suffering. However, even in this case, we come to the idea of belief as a means solely to avoid Hell. To even some of the most strident Christians, the point is to live a Christ-like life and to adhere to the principles of Jesus, to be forgiven, not to avoid Hell.

It is mistaking a side benefit for the core of the purpose of believing in Christ. Inasmuch as this is the case, the idea of believing in Jesus merely as a life insurance or a fire insurance policy is both incorrect from the outside view and probably offensive to Christian from an inside perspective.

It’s good to argue against particular beliefs, while a proper comprehension of the arguments, whether from new angles or old seems important.

To make a particular point, one could point to this as a reason for some Christians. While more comprehensive critiques, they must involve systematic critiques of the reasoning with examples, in which these insurance policy counterarguments could provide some modicum of additional flavour critique.

Leonardo Da Vinci posited a number of principles of thinking in regards to the ways in which direct experience and the mind play one to the other. In this sense, he wanted to catalogue observations and thinking as a formulation of function and self-consistency.

When taking into account some of the manner of the self-consistencies in mind, think of some of the most classic examples of human thought, a married bachelor, in thought, is not something within the realm of thinking, except as a formulation of words carried into a sentence.

Ergo, formulations of words can lead to meaninglessness and can derive from the meaningless because of the impossibility of the thought and the impossibility of true meaning conveyed by the thought.

The possible and the impossible in regards to thinking creates limits. A square circle, not the squaring of a circle or vice versa, as in all relevant properties of the square and all relevant properties of the circle equating to one another, these provide a basis for comprehension of one to the other, as in differentiating and not equating to one another.

A square circle, a married bachelor, and so on, amount to the impossible in mind if taking the categories in a serious manner. As one delves into the writing of Da Vinci, he posits something of a circle with a point.

In this point in the circle, one can project an infinity of lines from the point; while, also, one can project an infinity of lines beyond this too, and from any other point within the circle. In this manner, it becomes a hall of lines, or circle rather, infinite in parts and relations if desired.

These formulations represent infinities in mind. While, since the thoughts contain no space, or are spaceless, they are that which do not and cannot exist because of their ontological status in the mind rather than in the world.

Without applying it in art, but in theology, we can expand some of the thinking in which the fact of things in the mind containing no space, indivisibly, means the non-dimensionality, in reality, of things in the mind.

For Da Vinci, the things of the mind were, by definition, dimensionless. He posits dimensionlessness for imaginary objects, or those of the mind, where he considers direct experience of the world as a primary.

Things in the world as dimensional rather than dimensionless. These dimensions represent the real, as given by the senses. These are contained in space, so do not lack existence and have divisibility.

While things of the mind, given their lack of reality, they become dimensionless because they contain no space, as in every other point relates directly to every other point instantaneously and without regard for apparent separation in mind.

By dint of their lack of dimensionality, they amount to nothing. This “nothing” becomes something of a hallmark of things in the mind. In turn, the things of the mind, as nothing, represent nothing more than the culmination of a singular thought without true dimensionality as lacking spatiality.

In this lack of spatiality, these become as nothing. Things of the mind, in the light of their containing no real space, so having spacelessness, amount to nothing. He says exactly that with several experiments of mind to demonstrate this.

So, to be a-spatial is not to be transcending space, it is to be non-existent. In other sections, he goes on to describe the infinite as to have no form, as in to be infinite means to have no form. So, all finities mean form; all infinities mean no form.

A traditional set of properties for a god, as in Divine Attributes, are eternality, goodness, grace, holiness, immanence, immutability, justice, love, mercy, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, righteousness, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence.

The psychological qualities, as divine attributes, so divine psychological attributes, are goodness, grace, holiness, justice, love, mercy, and righteousness. These require a being extant, first; otherwise, no divine psychology present there.

In turn, we come to the properties of the divine, as in eternality, immanence, immutability, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence. Each of these properties posits an infinity, as in absolute and limitless.

The idea of the eternal means an a-temporality or an infinite temporality, or functionality to both. Immanence implies an immanent existence in all relevant respects and places. Immutability means an unchanging nature and form.

Omnipotence means the ability to do anything. An omnipresence means a presence in all places. Omniscience means knowing everything. A self-existence means contingent upon nothing else.

Sovereignty means ownership or rulership over all. Transcendence means to transcend all limits, as in limitless. That which is beyond definition in a true sense becomes God.

While, with these properties provided by theology, we can describe the ideas and forms of God in terms of the properties in His existence as well as the psychological qualities of God, so as to differentiate the ideas of the Divine Attributes themselves; those which are assumed as true and then taken as the first fact carried forward.

A failure of the properties rather than the divine psychological qualities ruins the foundations for psychology. Even if taking the Divine Attributes as true, and accepting the assertions of the qualities as first fact, we can examine them for some consistency, while utilizing some of the principles of thought of Da Vinci as a starting point.

To Da Vinci, to be infinite is to have no form, so to have no real content; to be finite is to have form and content, that which comes from or generates within the mind as truly having no dimensionality or space because of its non-reality.

Imaginary ideas rather than real objects; real objects of the world of direct sensory experience and imaginary ideas of the world of the mind. In this way, Da Vinci speaks of the dimensionless nature of the mind’s imaginary objects and the dimensionality of the objects of the world of direct sensory experience. The world places limits as the mind contains nothing via its lack of space.

Those properties rather than psychological attributes of the divine as seen in the Divine Attributes of goodness, grace, holiness, justice, love, mercy, and righteousness in contrast to the more primary Divine Attributes, as properties, of eternality, immanence, immutability, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence.

To know requires some material structure, as seen with all that we know about beings that can know; to exist means to exist in a time, as time unites with space, so with space; to be immanent means a sense of immanence in both space and time, so coming to a sense of the spatiotemporal requirements of immanence tied to a spatiotemporal volume or worldline implicated in a “material structure,” so omniscience, immanence, come as facets of omnipresence: Immanence means an omnipresence; omniscience means an omnipresence, or a presence.

Thus, we come to eternality, immutability, omnipotence, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence. While these properties come from thought, of things in the mind, the base existence of the world exhibit properties given to the senses, while the mind’s considerations mean a lack of dimensionality to them, or a spacelessness to their attribution.

Or, rather, in a manner of speaking, we can consider the reduction of space to dimensionlessness as nothingness, similarly with a proposed transcendence of spatial limits. In this transcendence, we can note the manner of infinity creating no form, as in infinite.

To propose an attribute, as in a Divine Attribute, as an infinite, it becomes formless, due to its infinity as a property; while, with this infinity of property, the formlessness means a lack in the property or the Divine Attribute itself, which means a double falsity in title in meaning.

As in, a Divine Attribute, in such a manner, becomes neither “Divine” nor an “Attribute” because an attribute would imply a self-limit so as to have a form with an attribute, a property, or a quality in the first place.

Therefore, the Divine Attributes, or the more primary attributes of God, with an infinity, in this aforementioned sense, would mean an impossibility of attribution, so a lack of attribute. This applies to eternality and transcendence.

In that, these mean something akin to a-temporality via endlessness, as reflections of the same attribute. To become the infinite in time, as in endlessness, or to transcend, is to become without form, while claiming a property. In turn, these become as those in the mind, nothing.

Leaving immutability, self-existence, and sovereignty, and omnipresence, the nature of Nature is both necessity and change. Without transcendence or eternality, the only presence is that which is in space-time, and space-time changes, and no sovereign would exist in the will of acts or the choices made and acted out by operators in the universe, as freedom of the will is given to human beings in the universe as a property for a creative act willed in the universe, thusly negating the total sovereignty as in a Divine Sovereignty.

Furthermore, when taking arguments for aseity or a self-existence of God, as in an aseitous being leading to all that which is seitous or being itself, existence in itself and time in existence, the contingency needs lead to an origin point of existence, to make the argument for that which embodies true and complete aseity, while, as with eternality and transcendence, something spaceless is not only not a thing; it’s nothing, as per explanation before.

Which is to say, the universe self-exists, not as a rabbit out of a hat but out of the Necessity of existence itself, if one takes these arguments seriously, and as with no total sovereignty (on the premises of the theology with freedom of the will), and mutability inherent in Nature by necessity, and as omnipresence implies a form of absolute presence and transcendent presence, the infinity creates no form while proposing a solution through infinitude, so leading to no true presence as a property, and spatiotemporal-lessness means a true nothing, so non-existent.

No eternality, immanence, immutability, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence means no divine psychological qualities to embody them, so as to mean no primary properties or Divine Attributes in eternality, immanence, immutability, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence derives no goodness, grace, holiness, justice, love, mercy, and righteousness.

Indeed, simply considerations of infinity having no form meaning no property, so only finities having form and so having properties, and the spaceless meaning nothing as in non-dimensionality, all Divine Attributes becomes a buggers brigade for millennia.

No space to have properties, so no materiality to embody them; thus, Divine Attributes as a divine comedy of errors (Q.E.D.).

Photo by Mark König on Unsplash

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for your attendance here today, Mrs. Sorensen, we will be focusing, as you have been informed and consented, on marriage in this series. Some can take this as advice from a married couple. Others can take this as a discussion on marriage between a young man and two married people. Still others, they formulate this as a fun little chat with different views on marriage. To make the long into the short, I am writing for a wedding magazine now. I joke about myself as the ‘Guy-in-Residence’ (also the ‘Canadian-in-Residence’). The team of writers is strong. You two have been married for some time. The title for this series is “The Unmeasurable Genius and the Infinite Jewel.” Many of the best minds in the history of philosophy have died single. Da Vinci died a bachelor; Hypatia died a bachelorette; Mencken died a bachelor; Newton died a bachelor; Sidis died a bachelor; Turing died a bachelor; Da Vinci had a funny line on marriage: “Marriage is like putting your hand into a bag of snakes in the hope of pulling out an eel.” Of course, the inimitable Socrates said, “By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you’ll become happy; if you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.” Marriage is an important topic, always has been a crucial subject. If someone is denying this, they’re simply not paying attention to current affairs or history, or their own lives. Most people consider marriage (or co-habitation) and having children one of the most important parts of life for them. According to Pew Research, these are the reasons considered important for marrying: 88% say for love. 81% say for making a lifelong commitment. 76% say for companionship. 49% say for having children. 30% say for a relationship recognized in a religious ceremony. 28% say for financial stability. 23% say for legal rights and benefits. Stereotypically, in North American culture, I assume other cultures. Men are more passive regarding marriage and weddings; women are more proactive regarding marriage and weddings. One of my colleagues, a woman, at our restaurant, joked, “The guys only have to propose, and then show up.” In fact, more than one woman held this view in a sort of ill-concealed jocular derision. As Mencken opened in In Defense of Women:

A man’s women folk, whatever their outward show of respect for his merit and authority, always regard him secretly as an ass, and with something akin to pity. His most gaudy sayings and doings seldom deceive them; they see the actual man within, and know him for a shallow and pathetic fellow. In this fact, perhaps, lies one of the best proofs of feminine intelligence, or, as the common phrase makes it, feminine intuition. The mark of that so-called intuition is simply a sharp and accurate perception of reality, an habitual immunity to emotional enchantment, a relentless capacity for distinguishing clearly between the appearance and the substance. The appearance, in the normal family circle, is a hero, magnifico, a demigod. The substance is a poor mountebank… A man’s wife labours under no such naive folly. She may envy her husband, true enough, certain of his more soothing prerogatives and sentimentalities. She may envy him his masculine liberty of movement and occupation, his impenetrable complacency, his peasant-like delight in petty vices, his capacity for hiding the harsh face of reality behind the cloak of romanticism, his general innocence and childishness. But she never envies him his puerile ego; she never envies him his shoddy and preposterous soul. This shrewd perception of masculine bombast and make-believe, this acute understanding of man as the eternal tragic comedian, is at the bottom of that compassionate irony which paces under the name of the maternal instinct. A woman wishes to mother a man simply because she sees into his helplessness, his need of an amiable environment, his touching self delusion.

There’s a lot to unpack here. So, why not unpack with people more experienced in this endeavour than myself? To those who don’t know, Christian, Dr. Sorensen, is the highest-scoring mainstream intelligence test scorer on the World Genius Directory with a claimed and certified 185+ S.D. 15 intelligence quotient on the WAIS-R. It matters a lot to some, while not at all to others, for different reasons – entirely fair. I frame him here as an “unmeasurable genius”. Mrs. Sorensen, naturally, is his wife. She is the wisest person Dr. Sorensen knows. Someone, who I have on good authority, is a stone from the Crown of God. I framed this as an “Infinite Jewel.” This explains the title of the series chosen by Dr. Sorensen from a few proposed to Dr. Sorensen by me. Dr. Sorensen and I have been writing on a wide smattering of subject matter. It was only a matter of time before coming to the topic of marriage. Who better to have than Mr. and Mrs. Sorensen to discuss this line of thought? Personal stuff first, only have to give as much as you like. How did you two meet?

Mr. Christian Sorensen and Mrs. Sorensen: We met by chance, it could be said, by something divine, since one day, we simply crossed our fates, in a Synagogue, that neither of us frequented. An anecdote, that so far, moves and surprises us, was that some time before, Christian went to that same Synagogue, for Purim, and because he had forgotten his kipa, the rabbi opened the museum’s showcase, to lend him one. What is impressive, was that inside that kipa, it was written the name of my maternal grandfather Z “L, of which we realized, long time after we had met, once that Christian, asked me, about my second last name. In fact, not only was of him, but also, it had been the kipa, of their chuppah, and happy marriage.

Jacobsen: What was the marriage ceremony for the two of you?

Mr. Sorensen and Mrs. Sorensen: We got married, in a private ceremony, under the stars and the chuppah, on a beautiful and exclusive beach, facing the sea.

Jacobsen: How many years have the two you been married? What do you count as the most important moment or variable in realizing this person was capable of the long haul?

Mr. Sorensen: For kabbalistic reasons, there are words, that I’m not going to pronounce, as a way not to overexpose my wife. Regarding the question, we have been married for almost a decade, and regarding my wife, I realized, of what before I could never have given witness, when being together, for the first time, she asked me, what am I to you? Without hesitating even a second, I replied, “My wife.”

Mrs. Sorensen: From the first day I saw him, I knew that our lives, were going to be together forever. It is something that is felt in the soul, and rationally it is difficult to explain, since in my opinion, for each person, before being born, G-d has reserved her someone special, in order to share its life and be a unity. In this sense, I consider myself fortunate, of having by my side, a husband, with an unmeasurable intelligence, who is simply complex, of whom I am lucky to learn new things every day, and who is the most wonderful man. Finding such a man, would be as difficult, as finding a person with his intelligence.

Jacobsen: For men entering into a marriage, what is important for them to consider – unique to them?

Mr. Sorensen: I think the most important qualities, are to be loyal, and to have the ability to listen.

Mrs. Sorensen:From my point of view, I think that men, should consider three fundamental points, that are love, confidence and patience, because if they manage to work on them, then they will be assured, of success in their marriages.

Jacobsen: For women thinking of marriage, what is important for them to consider – unique to them?

Mr. Sorensen: What defines all, because it is above anything, is unconditionality, and as a consequence of it, the capacity to give herself, in soul and body, without ever losing, its delicacy and femininity. I have always thought, in terms of gender, and anatomically speaking, that the man is to the head, as well as the woman, is to the neck, which leads to affirm, that the neck, is the one that allows, the head to move.

Mrs. Sorensen: I would say, the ability to keep the shalom beit, to love and understand the needs of the other, without ever losing respect for his person, and always to feel admiration, for the person who is next to you.

Jacobsen: What are important for both men and women to consider for considering marriage?

Mr. Sorensen and Mrs. Sorensen: We think that all the richness of marriage, is based on differences, and in the complement derived from these, therefore, although we are equal to each other, we are not in an absolute sense equals, but only as people, endowed with the same rights. In consequence, so that the above actually occurs, it is essential, to have the ability to think about the other, instead of thinking exclusively about ourselves, which is equivalent to say, that when you think of yourself, this thought should pass first of all, through what the other has in mind, and only then, towards the decision of something. In this sense, we could affirm, that just as equality is to symmetry, which leads to competitiveness, likewise, differences are to complementarity, which leads to uniqueness. In other words, unhealthy individualism, carries to extreme machismo and feminism, and both, as happens with symbiotic love and hate, are finally, two sides of the same mask. In practical terms, marriage, is how it happens in the chuppad, since the man puts the roof and both build a home.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mr. and Mrs. Sorensen. 

Mr. Sorensen: My pleasure, and I hope the evidence, leads to idealism, but not to platonic love.

Mrs. Sorensen: Thank you, for allowing me the opportunity, to speak about the man behind the genie.

Leonardo Da Vinci spoke on the infinite and the finite, and nothing, as well as that which exists in the mind, or not. His writings pertain to a wide subject matter while exhibiting not only mastery, but creative originality of a high calibre.

In one quote, he states, “A point is not part of a line.” As in, one must break apart the meaning of the infinite, the finite, the coterminous, the mind, the natural, the mathematical, the empirical, and more. This statement reflects the fundamental philosophy of Da Vinci, of which its remnants, as which remained as principles of thought, weave through the quoted works together as one, as in a unified framework for looking at the world, centuries ahead of his time, and now, and hidden to naked eyes, not to the mind.

He said, “It is the infinite alone that cannot be attained, for if it could it would become finite.” In this, the finitude of an existence comes in stark contrast to the infinite. The infinite of which no finite, no matter the size or the number of combinations, could ever match in magnitude.

In his natural philosophy of thought, he comprised a series of independent, unique considerations of the nature of nature, and, by derivative formulation, the nature of human nature vis-à-vis human thought. The finite in contemplation of the infinite.

Da Vinci stated, “The smallest natural point is larger than all mathematical points, and this is proved because the natural point has continuity, and any thing that is continuous is infinitely divisible; but the mathematical point is indivisible because it has no size.”

His point of a smallest “natural” point is in contrast to a smallest point because a “natural” smallest point would include the natural – the real – world of sense and experience as given by the five senses with the most important, to Da Vinci, of sight.

In some manner, in the first quote, he posits the impossibility of an infinite as something attainable, which retains a quality of impossibility for the finite to attain it, instead of the possibility of the existence of the infinite.

In this sense, he merely posits a mathematical truth in the form of the infinite never reachable through the finite. Furthermore, in the personal notebooks, or work books, Da Vinci postulated more.

His premises on a natural point is continuity, so infinity through limitless divisibility, and the “mathematical point” or non-natural point becomes indivisible “because it has no size.” This natural versus mathematical split came firmly to the grasp of the mind of Da Vinci.

He didn’t write carelessly. He was focused and sure of the word as he was in his stroke of the paint brush. The focused separation become the limit versus the limitless, and the natural versus the mathematical.

He comes as a natural philosopher or a scientist, and a mathematician, and so, in both, an empiricist-logician examining for functional relations between things of the mind and things of the sense, so, truly, a logical-operationalist or someone in search of the self-consistent, inside and out, and for functionality, operational truths about the world and the mind.

A logical operationalist, or a self-consistency-operationalist rather more precisely, as one who finds the consistencies of the mind and the world in which one inhabits the evident self-consistent operations in the natural world given by experience and the self-consistent operations of mind in the mathematical world.

He said, “Nothing is that which fills no space. If one single point placed in a circle may be the starting point of an infinite number of lines, and the termination of an infinite number of lines, there must be an infinite number of points separable from this point, and these when reunited become one again; whence it follows that the part may be equal to the whole.”

Nullity, total absence of space; to be a-spatial is to not be, to Da Vinci, where the only existence given by “to be” simply inheres in the language and represents a limit of the language, not of the intrinsic quality or valuation of the original thought of spacelessness as a fundamental premise for nothingness. That is, non-spatial upper limit, lower limit, range, contents, and existence, equate to proper no-things, nothing.

Da Vinci noted the single point in a circle may be the basis for infinity of lines and its coterminous limit with the non-infinite & non-finite, while an infinite separativity exists for the lines themselves with origin in this central point of the circle. His conclusion: the part may be equal to the whole, not is (necessarily) equal to the whole.

In this sense, he derives a principle of reflective capacities of parts to the whole via spatial relations on the premise of an infinite divisibility in actuality and the infinite divisibility permissive of an infinitude of connections from the point in the circle to the rest of the points, as such, in the circle.

On space, once more, Da Vinci, states, “The point, being indivisible, occupies no space. That which occupies no space is nothing. The limiting surface of one thing is the beginning of another.”

Thus a direction of attention to the idea of a point in space, something in a space, mentally, while occupying no space, by definition, causa mentale, becomes something of the mind, not of the world, so equal to no space as occupying no space, so being nothing, as per the derivations before.

While concluding, the limits of the surface of one becomes the beginning of a surface of the other. This raises further questions about the separation of one surface to another, one object to another, where he posits a sort of bleeding of surface to surface as being the nature of the surface of objects, hence the nature of objects derived from direct experience with a property in the object from a subject in relation to the perception of the object in Nature.

These separations of one surface into another formulate something akin to distinctions of mind and not distinctions of nature, so a distinction with a requisite operator on the other side, so Da Vinci himself.

“That which has no limitations, has no form. The limitations of two conterminous bodies are interchangeably the surface of each. All the surfaces of a body are not parts of that body,” Da Vinci continued.

Infinite in all relevant capacities creates no form; thus, form requires finites, where finites exist in the world of the natural in different ways, where limitations exist in “two coterminous bodies” with interchangeability of bodies through surfaces.

In some sense, the properties apart from the person do not reflect the boundaries as in the mind of the experiencer and theorizer, where the coterminous become the partially co-spatial in experience and in mind.

The premise of the limitless meaning no form translates into the self-limiting as that which has form. Any form becomes an intrinsic self-limit on the infinite and, therefore, a finite; finite means form, and infinite means formless.

The surfaces of the object or the “body” become co-spatially extant with the surfaces of the other object(s) or ‘bodies’ in which one becomes the other while separativity remains crucial to an experiential distinction of the objects in perception, in and of themselves.

Da Vinci stated, “The line has in itself neither matter nor substance and may rather be called an imaginary idea than a real object; and this being its nature it occupies no space. Therefore an infinite number of lines may be conceived of as intersecting each other at a point, which has no dimensions and is only of the thickness (if thickness it may be called) of one single line.”

To have neither matter nor substance, or to be “an imaginary idea” rather “than a real object” creates a unitary distinctiveness in the thinking of Da Vinci, where the mind limits the actual in conception, while perception provides strong approximations within the remit of the experience, so providing knowledge of the world through (flawed) direct perception, the objects derived from real objects or the ideas of the real objects amount to the imaginary, where by “its nature occupies no space” so equates to nothing.

An infinity of lines between points in the object conceived in potentiality. Each intersecting in all parts conceived or potentially conceived with a dimensionlessness inherent in the lines, the dots, the intersections, so the object in mind or imaginary idea, itself, as something without dimensions – so being nothing as a-spatial, because dimensionless (non-dimensionality) in mind.

He continued, “The boundaries of bodies are the least of all things. The proposition is proved to be true, because the boundary of a thing is a surface, which is not part of the body contained within that surface; nor is it part of the air surrounding that body, but is the medium interposted between the air and the body, as is proved in its place.”

The most minimal natural boundaries come from the boundaries of “bodies” or objects, such is the phenomenological fact of perception. Where, the boundary is the surface; while the surface is not part of the body “contained within that surface,” and not part of the medium between surfaces, it’s “in place.”

The objects as two spatial volumes; the surfaces as two others; the medium as a fifth separating the two surfaces, then the two surfaces further separating the objects within the direct sensory perception and conception of Da Vinci.

To him, direct experience of the world was the most important. In these quotations, he exhibits a form of experienced ratiocination taking the sensory information from the world, reasoning about it, then deriving principles about both the world and the capacity for personal observation about the world.

A separation between objects, surfaces, and mediums, and the degree of finitude and divisibility within the world of experience and then indivisibility and nothingness within the world of mind, while directing attention to the self-consistency principles in either and the operations functioning behind both and to derive both in direct experience of the world and in the mind, respectively.

Photo by Edgar Chaparro on Unsplash