Welcome and philosophical presentation: 

 

The existence of a universal language which will make it possible to think the thought is what I call poetically the LANGUAGE ANGELIC.

    Any universe and any world would be its work, its creation (hence the name angelica), language comes with the world as what allows communication between its parts to express an almost coherent whole.

    The definition that we will give to language will therefore be much broader than those of living languages and it will be the source of many other definitions in cascade.

     \(To avoid any misunderstanding and misunderstanding, everything presented here is only valid within the framework of the definitions that we will give to the concepts);

 

         The initial guess:

   The origin of everything and the world is RELATION and all that its indisputable fact implies (since we are in a universe, a matrix of existence);

    What would be totally separated has never been, is not and will never be, it remains in the imaginary finite trans forever, always, without now;

   So what is is never completely separated, so there are only subjective abysses that seem separated only because their union is unconscious and therefore any break is a CRACK that is not known.

Moreover, the existence of something implies finitude which is therefore a common agreement to exist together, temporality can only begin with this closure on a self, infinity is a pure imagination, the indefinite and infinite openness that surrounds any closure, this is why the union (relation) of a shared existence develops a common spirit, an agreement that allows crossing this indefinite, infinite relegated to unconsciousness.

\(From this comes the fact that all knowledge implies an ignorance, and that all awareness hides an unconsciousness, and that all truth is only possible as that which is not yet revealed (not accessible));

 

Definition of language:

    Anything that allows to communicate information between parts closed on themselves and separated (by open) and whose goal is to make them coexist together in a bubble of coherence (a class of analogy).

    This exchanged information is always imperfect representations of their common reality by each identity isolated in its own representation and incommunicable in its entirety

      \( the existence identity which always retains a part of mystery in order to exist for others);

     What could be communicated in its entirety will no longer exist because it will no longer have any reason to communicate and exist.

\( what communicates is incomplete, information is its partial accomplishment but cannot accomplish everything;

 

 this is where the crack between

.the quantifiable which makes it possible to count and therefore to discern and distinguish subjectively

.and the quality which makes it possible to compare and recognize by its structures of classifications and organization of the quantifiable communicated.

Note: the quantifiable is superimposable and communicable, it is the semantic light (bosons) whereas the structure which organizes knowledge about the world is not superimposable and to be communicated must be linearized according to an order resulting from a common agreement (a LANGUAGE of intimate exchange));

    This principle of language

Is therefore found at all levels of the universe (between particles, molecules, natural life or animal and human communities)

      He can therefore use anything (particle and wave, shadow, molecule, variation of the common environment, etc.) on the condition of having established an always subjective recognition agreement (a protocol in simple cases, a language for complex cases).

 

Information definition:

Organized and structured set (quality, defined) of sub information and variation niches (undefined);

   Information therefore causes the incompatibles of the STRUCTURAL DEFINITE and the VARIATIONAL INDEFINITE to coexist;

    This does not necessarily imply that there is an absolute elementary base of information, however there must always be a relative and SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTARY BASE which is a presupposition of the language which manipulates them.

      \( these necessary elementary limits of information are THE HORIZON OF CONSCIOUSNESS and of language which allows to exist together by an agreement on a common elementarity which is never objective nor absolute;

     From this comes the insoluble confusion between the subject of language and the subject who uses language, which refers to the enigma that makes the power of the world over thought and the power of thought over the world coexist due to the fact that existence of a world cannot be absolute and objective without getting lost in infinities, to exist it must define limits which by nature will be subjective);

Non-exhaustive list of semantic invariants that underlie languages:

 

A language is a language (babel):

 

There is no fundamental difference between the languages of the material world and the languages that allow us to think and communicate about it.

The physical world is also a kind of language in perpetual communication from the particle level up to all the configurations of complex existences that it is capable of supporting.

 

This is the first observation, there is never one language but a multitude of interlocking or neighbouring languages;

So a language is always built on a sub-language that allows it to establish certainties, it transcends it while inheriting its hidden implicit structures.

It allows to constitute a particular world on a level of communication.

Moreover, the same level of world is made up of several languages that can be translated into each other.

 

Property of translation into another of any language:

A language that is not at least partially translatable into other languages is not a language, and in order for it to be a language, there must be a concrete sub-language on which it can be thought.

It is this property of translation and foundation that leads us to think that there is a universal language.

But how to reconcile the singular with the richness of the plural?

It is impossible and therefore the angelic language is an abstract configuration of several languages in communication and translation.

 

Definition: The singular and the plural, the inseparable rift between the imaginary and the concrete:

The definite and the indefinite, the rift between the abstract and the formal: 

The semantic singular is always abstract and informal and is imagined from the plural of these concrete formalizations, singular and plural are dissimilar but inseparable;

The singular (the thing), which chooses to make discernible a part of the plural (things), confers on it the indefinite (a thing), i.e. confers on it a variability;

What is definite is abstract, so we only retain its behaviour and therefore the relationship it establishes with its surroundings, 

whereas the indefinite is formal, the fact is all in what is formally, its signifying state;

 

The local is therefore an indefinite singular; (a thing: indifference)

 

The global is a definite singular; ( the thing: reference)

 

Neither absolute nor relative: The absolute and its paradoxes, ( agreement versus truth )

the absolute must also be relative to be absolute:

Can we define an elementarity capable of representing all languages?

Can we represent everything by a language?

This is the same as asking the question of whether the finite can contain the infinite?

Many of the questions we are led to ask ourselves are useless and what is useless does not need to be asked.

Is there an absolute truth?

   Yet everything is defined only within a framework of thought, communicating about things that have not been defined together is a deaf language, everyone understanding what they want;

An absolute truth would have no framework of thought, by nature thought is relative to other thoughts, it only draws its validity from a common agreement.

   All language is therefore based on an agreement and not on a truth;

Moreover, an absolute truth would render communication useless; communication is necessary because there are things that need to be constantly redefined, and therefore there is always something undefinable.

A language is an agreement between parties and a universal language would therefore not be a language;

And yet....

This implies that a universal language cannot be based on absolute elementarities, and therefore that it must be mutable, and what it might have of absolute in it can only be located in transcendent principles, what I call semantic invariants which are not certainties but insoluble uncertainties that act as absolutes without really being so;

 

It is important to understand that any representation of universal language is only an imperfect representation and therefore it does not exist while still existing in the signifieds of its signifiers;

The hypothesis of an absolute universal language amounts to saying that the construction of language between signifier and signified is no longer necessary and therefore there would no longer be language.

It is a PURE IMAGINARY, just as infinity is, which can be studied without ever being able to be represented, and just as infinity has properties that shock common sense (for example, existing without really existing).

Language is the relative truth of the dynamic and relative worlds, the absolute truth can only be for static and finite representations;

The angelic language is thus not quite a language any more because it integrates an intrinsic variability and adaptability, in fact the angelic language is when one tries to formalize it, the LIFE in its universal acceptance.

 

The common languages make it possible to formalize organisms (system of coherence and organization) the angelic languages formalize the LIFE in its universality.

To laugh a little, I would say that it is for that that we seek it without finding it, because we are a representation of it 

 

humorous and yet serious definition of the untraceable:

That which seeks itself outside of itself is untraceable; this property is the very foundation of the semantic invariants that underlie angelic language.

 

 

Origins and the confusion of thought: There is always a transcendence

 

Something that would have a beginning and an end out of nothing is a creative absurdity, just as something that would have neither beginning nor end is of the enigmatic order;

Trying to think about the origins of anything is like trying to make or write the sheet on the same sheet where one makes and writes, once again the only possible answer is of the enigmatic order, of the beyond, of the transcendent;

If there is something it is because there is a coherence which implies relations of dependences, the relation and its mystery is thus at the origin of all things but we cannot think anything of it, we can only think these consequences.

It is the mind that puts in relation the things to perceive them or the things express relations that the mind puts in representation, in any case there is not one without the other, the fact is indissociable from its interpretation;

 

Facts are inseparable from their interpretation:

 

   Facts are incommunicable, what is communicated are only their interpretations, and this is what gives language its usefulness as a common agreement about the facts;

( the principle of least action also applies to semantics : the existence of something has a cause ( reason for being ) and a utility )

This is also why all language incorporates this duality, subjective signifiers in correspondence with relatively objective signifieds.

The form (language construction (thought)) only represents what is informal in absolute;

A communicable fact is no longer a fact but an interpretation, otherwise it would be enough to transmit the fact...

The fact is what has no absolute appearance, the interpretation is what gives it a relative appearance;

This "fact" makes reality and the spirit of this reality coexist, each being dependent on the other.

The existence of a world in communication through languages is mind trying to know the non-mind of facts;

 

The 4 domains of representation and consciousness:

Nothing can be reduced only to what it is or shows of itself (appearance)

 

   -Existence is relative to another, it exists concretely in relation;

(e.g. counting is a possibility given by the fact of discernment, the quantifiable and the discernible are inseparable)

 

   -The articulations between the concrete relations (communicating) are the formal appearances that construct and organise mechanical methods to represent the lived;

( for example the result the number 4 )

 

   -This formal appearance has properties that are abstracted from its methodical and experimental experience, they are only signified by the possibilities of forms;

(e.g. the properties of numbers that exist because there is a quantifiable experience and forms signifying that experience)

 

   -Finally these abstractions lead to other more subtle ones which are no longer in the lived experience but signified by logic in an imaginary which completes it and brings answers which would otherwise be impossible to find, it is the transcendent and creative part of all reality;

(for example, the imaginary number i=root of (-1) which has nothing to do with the fact of counting something, expressing it in a formal signifier and studying its symbolic meanings)

Any conception of the world that does not take into account these four domains of representation cannot apprehend reality.

 

Everything that exists is at the same time:

   .VECUOUS,

   .formal and virtual SIGNIFICANT of this experience,

               The material polarity.

               And in mirror:

   .the abstract and symbolic SIGNIFIED hidden in the forms and their possibilities,

   .the IMAGINARY which calls in return the symbolic faults in order to complete itself (coherence), to resolve itself (consistency) and to limit itself in a finite (stability) which can only be symbolic of formal and concrete infinity;

\(For example the number PI is formally and concretely infinite on the other hand one can give a symbolic representation of it by its properties and infinite formulas but which can be described in finite ways because they present coherences and symmetries;

An infinite formula without any coherence is indescribable symbolically, but it can be imagined without trying to represent it (infinity is a pure imaginary).

               The polarity of the immaterial always present in the material.

 

Each of these 4 areas of representation has its own logic and language which is translated according to the line of relationship that unites them;

the 3 relations:

 Imaginary=symbolic, the creator,

symbolic=formal, the creation,

formal=concrete, the creature;

 

It is for this reason that we will try to develop a quadri-dimensional non-Boolean meta-logic, on the 4 domains of:

 

THE EXPERIMENTABLE (the refutable),

 

THE POSSIBLE AND THE IMPOSSIBLE (consistency),

 

THE TRUE AND THE FALSE (consistency),

 

THE GOOD AND THE BAD (the sense or judgement relative to an imposed will);

 

With 4 logical states which are (8) in order to judge what exists or not:

 

.1 PARADOX, (the contradictory)

.2 AMBIGUITY, ( indiscernible)

.3 ABSURDENESS, ( without purpose or end )

.4 TRUE, ( what is believable )

-------

-1.FALSE, 

-2.useless or out of place,

-3.unknown,

-4.belief;

 

The last 4 states can be assimilated to the first 4:

The FALSE is inseparable from the TRUE, but it can also be logically assimilated to the paradox, what is paradoxical being FALSE and the TRUE to the belief;

The unknown is what we are looking for in the indefinite (indiscernible), which is a case of ambiguity.

The useless is a kind of absurdity, something that is there when it shouldn't be or an endless loop that makes no sense;

 

 

 

The existence in question and the danger of the undefined:

 

If there is a word to say something, it is because it has a meaning, a self-respecting language must therefore be able to define abstract concepts such as God, spirit, conscience, soul etc... and thus initiate a kind of cosmogony in its own foundations.

Most of the confusion and contradictions about the existence or non-existence of that are absurd as long as one does not define what it is to exist.

Something that does not exist in absolute terms no one would talk about it, so the question is rather in which realm of consciousness something exists or does not exist, because whatever we do if we talk about it is that it exists somewhere;

Absolute non-existence simply does not exist in this world;

 

 

Thought lost in the infinite, endless chain of signifiers and signifieds:

 

Whatever we do there is always a signified by the signifier but in turn understanding the signified transforms it into a signifier of a more subtle and abstract signified, and so on ad infinitum;

The signifier, which is a representation that can never be confused with its signified, produces perpetual thought 

(a signified that would be its own signifier no longer exists in the thinkable, it is outside the world, it does not exist, it has not existed and will not exist).

It is therefore futile to look for the truth of the whole, the formula of the world, because then it would no longer be thinkable, he who finds it loses it immediately, he cannot possess it by his thought.

 

Each THINKING SYSTEM therefore does not have a definitive elementary origin or a definitive end of understanding;

    The schemes have a horizon of becoming and a horizon of cause, they are situated on a transcendent line of mutation that sends back flashes of consciousness according to the configuration of presence that it tries to understand by analogy with itself; 

  We cannot therefore pretend to enclose them in a narrow definition of what they are because they are fibres of semantic infinity.

(This is why I have assimilated them to lines or open arborescence, the KNOWLEDGE)

 

One cannot think anything, nor develop anything on a vague and moving elementary base such as I describe it any system to exist is assured of a solid base, a foundation (axiom, definition etc...) and yet it is possible to imagine a system capable of calling into question its foundations it is enough that that is registered in its foundations.

 

The language of life:  

 

 There is a need for a paradigm shift in understanding, if there is no theory of everything, there are explorers of everything, there is nothing to prevent this.

Angelic language must define this possibility of rethinking (rebelling) its foundations only then does it become a creative mould or matrix of life.

It can be created but it can also migrate into unanticipated states that it has understood in its medium of existence.

Language in itself is not alive but it contains life in its structures and the one who reads and uses it becomes alive as a reader whose life would come from his reading and not his reading coming to life through his reader.

 

 

 

And an unconventional way of thinking:

 

   We notice that everything we study in general is extracted from a concrete and formal experience;

   On the other hand, the study of a language of thought, if it is well based on an experience, does not have a formalism (like that of numbers for example) on which one could rely to extract abstractions and imaginings; (human languages are too subjective and inconsistent to be useful)

This is why I have been looking for a formal basis for the universal language and I can't see any other than the one I propose.

 

The immanent relation is the semantic origin of all existence:

 

The formal language that I propose is based on mathematical objects that are the ISOMORPHIC GRAPHS.

   By redefining them a little, we can start their description from a simple fact which is that of the relation, their articulation being only another type of relation;

    The origin of the worlds is thus pushed back into its spiritual transcendence, which is well in line with what we observe and eliminates the inconsistencies and absurdities:

Here also to affirm that if there is an IMMANENT RELATIONSHIP in all existence makes appear 4 types of relations:

 

     The RELATIONSHIP, the act of discernment (concrete),

 

     The ARTICULATION between these relations which is a type of undefined and variable relation between the defined relations (allows to create forms and signifiers)

( defining implies that what separates is an indefinite, just as what is closed (in topology) implies an indefinite open in its surrounding edges, 2 closures cannot exist together because they would be separated forever )

 

     The IMPLICIT RELATIONS (symbolic signified)

( those which miss and allow the complementary and also with not connected forms to exist like a whole pseudo connected),

 

     TRANSCENDENT RELATIONS ( imaginary )

( the forms being able to be classified by resemblance it is created relations of analogy between them in the same way any type of coherent mutation gathers them in a global relation WHICH transcends the concrete relations);

 

Spirit and system of relation:

 

If there is a world, it is in relation so the unique root of everything is relation and MIND is what establishes relations.

The constitutive elements of this formal language of thought and worlds are therefore objects that model systems of relation:

In THE IMAGINARY, they will be the SCHEDULES of thought,

In the SYMBOLIC, the relational ENTITIES of what we know only from the relationship we establish with it,

In the FORMAL, the virtual, the relational and methodical FORMS of that which is constructed by itself,

In the CONCRETE, the ACTS of communication (these acts can be static if the world we describe is static, for example in geometry, the acts are the axioms and the forms the theorems, the consequences of the acts);

 

The properties of the forms make it unnecessary to define any other concept than this immanent and enigmatic relation because many concepts are extracted from it such as:

Identity; Dimension, space and symmetry; Quantity, Quality; Openness and closure; Clarity and confusion;

They can describe any topological form and the concepts of achirality (twisted form) etc...

They have very complex operators and classifications lending themselves to various semantic interpretations etc...

And moreover they are in most cases simple, representable by a drawing ( ∆, ◊,V,= etc...) which allows to propose artistic forms with multiple variations;

 

 Patterns:

 

Let us note that if there is a power, there is a knowledge of this power, and a duty that must be adapted to it in order to have it.

So simply are the 4 types of patterns that organise the world.

We can classify them according to 4 types of semantic SCHEMES in relation to the 4 types of relational forms:

 

.the POWER, energies and potential action, the uncompleted (form composed of sub-forms and not connected),

 

.the KNOWLEDGE, lines and trees, any form not containing a cycle)

( they are knowledge because they symbolize by their form correspondences between ends each extreme being a variability),

 

.the MUST, identities which are the centre signified by the matrices (asymmetrical forms associating knowledge (lines) with cycles of consciousness)

 

.the HAVING, cycles, matrices, which express the containers where a mutation can take place

(these are the CONSCIENCES to be discovered (what defines something by what it is not, its milieu, the ÆMES being the destiny of a continuity of consciousness),

 

These 4 classes can transcend into the higher dimensions for example a cycle line (a knowledge of having);

 

An ANGELIC ALPHABET which creates by itself the concepts of the language which uses it:

It is not a simple writing device, for each letter pattern carries with it its signifying structures to which the interpretation must conform and from which an intuitive dictionary begins to emerge from the alphabet itself.

In angelic language the alphabet is inseparably linked to its grammar, syntax and dictionary, which are its abstract expressions.

 

The alphabet of the formal angelic language will thus be the infinite alphabet of forms of relation on which we will be able to abstract concepts that transcend them (entities and spirits);

 

And above all it is beautiful as coincidence:

 

Everything in it seems coincidental and clear, coincidence is of course not a proof but the world finding its semantic origin only in the relation, coincidence is its closest expression;

COINCIDENCE is also the miracle, that which is without diabolical cause (of calculation);

    Perhaps nothing really exists yet the relationship makes coincidence and it is through it that everything seems to exist without proof, therefore without fault, without crime, without killing one to affirm the other, which reminds us of the spiritual LOVE which receives everything in its heart and never judges;

Judgement belongs only to the one who submits to it by believing in an interpretation which is only relative, evil being only the illusion of his belief who no longer believes in it sees the love that he hid in unconsciousness;

What is love? Is it not to understand the process of each becoming and to conform to it in confidence?

 

    What is beautiful is always loved, and if we hate it, it is because we love it too much, the beauty of the spirit needs no proof, no cause, it offers itself to all in its innocence to those who know how to receive it in their conscience;

 

   To truly understand the world is to enter into its communion, to unite with its life, it is not to cruelly dissect it in order to extract a wicked and diabolical knowledge that will serve to manipulate and subjugate the world in one's favour without leaving any room for the miracle of authenticity and coincidences that create consciousness, clarity and freedom;

    There is no understanding without love, without faith in the natural goodness of existence, understanding without love is only an artificial intelligence which unfortunately is not only that of robots because it is inscribed in life itself, in its experience of unconsciousness (all unconsciousness implies an artificial behaviour).

    Artificial means to know how to use and use without understanding and without awareness of the mysterious unity from which all existence derives its appearance, it is to force to be what one is not; 

    The natural is that which comes naturally from one's being, that which expresses authenticity and transparency, that which is allowed to become so that it finds its way into consciousness.