By: Alex J.

Tavarez

Objects and Properties

What I will be talking about here are objects and properties, and as to remain
clear, semantically, and people do not react to that which I’ll be speaking of here by
the fallacy of equivocation:

Object - the raw material of that which is observed (that thing which is observed by
the observer, but has no immanently subjective things imposed upon or projected
onto it); the quantifiable or experiential aspect of a thing which is observed.

Property - that which can be used to describe; something which articulates

something of which an object can have.

When we speak of an object, we are usually referring to a specific thing which

we observe – in other words, we refer to that which be, or could be. Objects are thus
simply hypothetical beings or “states of existence.” But when we refer to a
property, we are articulating that which can be prescribed as not just part of the
being of the balloon, but rather as that which relates to the balloon by being
acceptably connected to it by virtue of its essence.

For example, supposed we talked of a balloon. When we speak of a balloon,

we are simply speaking of a state of existence by virtue of the essence of that
object called the balloon. We are speaking of that which simply be there. However,
when we say the balloon is red, or that what we are looking at a red balloon, we are
speaking of the object’s becoming, its emergence, of redness – the balloon’s
essence and identification in existence is not prescribed by redness, but, however,
the red of the balloon is the articulation of a becoming of the balloon - something
which the balloon is not, but need not have an absence of articulation of as related
to the balloon in some way.

Let us take a step back now: the redness could also be described as an object
as well. How is this possible? The red can also be, however, and by being, it allows
itself to be interposed and have a certain relationship with other things which be,
inevitably (as being the reduction, it intervenes in the holistic). The essence of
redness therefore becomes translated and interconnected with other essences, of
which it is a tangent. For example, suppose smudges exist, and colors exist – the
color may preside somewhere in the existence. The essence of a smudge is, or at
least one of them is, its boundaries, while the second is its containing of something
within its boundaries, or having something immanent. I’m pretty sure those two
parts seeking to explain the essence of a smudge is not sufficient; however, we will
leave it so, as it is sufficient for my explanatory purposes. Now, the essence of a
color is that it is somehow representative of itself as an object. However, to do this,
it may start or stop from a certain boundary, and then those boundaries will have
By: Alex J. Tavarez

the immanent color. Through this, and by their essences, they’re able to connect to
each other as one object: “redsmudge.”

By this, it is so that every single thing in the universe is actually a unity, it is

one thing – it is The One. Much like how you can exam each chapter in a book and
come up with a good understanding, and an even better one if you relate them to
one another – this enters the whole of the book. The world is of the same way: all
these objects have an essence in common.

Since a property is something which articulates something which an object

can have, and since, as I’ve also stated before, a property is something that relates
to X by being acceptably connected to X by X’s essence (as illustrated before with
the “redsmudge” example), then that means that the object can also be its own
property – when the object is solely its own properties and contains none outside of
itself, the object is called a basic object, or basic substance. The nature of the
property and the object, as well as how being a property is simply a different form
of being an object, can be illustrated through language, where the difference in form
is more easily shown through the separation of property-of-object from the-object by
adjective and noun/pronoun:

1) The black blackness.

2) The black redness.

3) The red blackness.

In the examples just aforementioned, black is simply a different forming for the
word blackness, and vice versa (though the root word for an adjective is usually a
noun – this makes sense, as will be explained later). This is exactly true of objects
and properties; as in the “redsmudge,” the red could be described as the property
of the smudge; however, the red is an object itself as well. It’s only, as has been
explained beforehand, a property because it compliments or fits or associates with
the essence of the smudge sufficiently so as to proclaim it a property of the
smudge.

The smudge cannot be the property of the redness; however, because the
essence of redness doesn’t allow for smudge to be subordinate to it, as fulfilling,
completing its essence or being sufficiently associated with it – it can work only vice
versa.

The redness can be a property of itself, because it completes itself to the extent
in which it needs itself as an object in order to fulfill its existence or identity rather.
Without redness having the quality of red, it would cease to be itself, and will
become that which was its other (as in that which is different from it). Thus, in order
for the red to be red, by tautology, it must have the property of redness – i.e. it
By: Alex J. Tavarez

must be a red redness. Thus, in the examples I showed, the following are not
possible:

1) The black blackness. (Possible)

2) The black redness. (Impossible; Note: this language may be used to mean the
“dark redness,” which makes sense – but such language is imprecise if used
to mean that)

3) The red blackness. (Impossible)

Since there must be the property red in order for there to be redness, and vice
versa, then if there exists an object, there must be a property in it, and if there
exists a property, there must be an object from which it exists.

Objects precede properties, not in a logical sense, but in a causal or ontological

sense. In order for objects to have properties, there must be objects which can be
used to sufficiently associate with, fulfill, complete, other objects – so, there must
be objects to be properties. This explains why the root words of adjectives are
nouns. It can thus be said there are infinite objects – but then again, it need not,
and shan’t be, said, for there can be basic substances (objects which only have
themselves as property).

So:

1) Objects precede properties.

2) If an object exists, a property exists.

3) If a property exists, an object exists.

4) Everything is One, and yet discernable.