{"id":1941,"date":"2026-08-03T11:41:36","date_gmt":"2026-08-03T11:41:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/?p=1941"},"modified":"2026-08-03T11:45:20","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T11:45:20","slug":"zero-and-infinity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/zero-and-infinity\/","title":{"rendered":"ZERO AND INFINITY"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Relationship and the Emergence of Dimensionless Ontology<\/strong><\/p>\n

Western philosophy has always been haunted by two abysses: nothingness and wholeness, zero and infinity. These two concepts have functioned as the extreme poles of metaphysical thought\u2014the absolute negation and the absolute plenitude, the void that threatens all meaning and the totality that exceeds all comprehension. Yet, curiously, they have almost always been treated as opposites, as mutually exclusive horizons that define the boundaries within which human thought must operate. Zero is the limit of absence, infinity the limit of presence; between them, the finite world of measurable beings unfolds. But what if this opposition is itself the deepest illusion of the metaphysical tradition? What if zero and infinity are not opposites but two faces of the same reality, two expressions of a single relationship that precedes and transcends all distinction? What if the relationship between zero and infinity is not a contradiction to be resolved but a primordial mystery to be inhabited\u2014a mystery that reveals the very structure of Being as a dimensionless, paradoxical, self-referential whole? The philosophical project we examine here\u2014which we may call “dimensionless ontology”\u2014 proposes precisely this: that the true nature of reality is not to be found in the opposition between nothingness and plenitude, but in their radical inseparability. It suggests that the relationship between zero and infinity is not a problem to be solved but a truth to be lived, a truth that shatters the very frameworks through which Western thought has traditionally understood existence, knowledge, and the self. This essay will explore the philosophical dimensions of this relationship, tracing its implications for ontology, epistemology, and ethics. It will argue that the dimensionless ontology emerging from this exploration offers a radical alternative to the dominant paradigms of Western metaphysics\u2014one that transcends the dualisms of being and non-being, unity and multiplicity, finitude and infinitude, and opens the way to a new understanding of truth as event, of knowledge as participation, and of existence as the living experience of a paradox that never resolves but endlessly generates meaning.<\/p>\n

The Crisis of Classical Ontology<\/h1>\n

The Geometric Prison of Being<\/h2>\n

The Western philosophical tradition, from its Greek origins, has been dominated by what we might call a “geometry of Being.” This geometry\u2014this spatial, measurable, dimension-bound understanding of existence\u2014has shaped virtually every major metaphysical system. From Pythagoras to Plato, from Descartes to Kant, Being has been understood as something that occupies space, that has position, that can be located, defined, and bounded. The very language of philosophy\u2014substance, attribute, accident, essence, existence\u2014is the language of spatialization: we speak of “underlying” (substance), of “standing under” (hypostasis), of “properties” that belong to a thing, as if Being were a container and beings were its contents. This geometricization reached its apotheosis in the Cartesian revolution. Descartes, in his radical search for certainty, reduced the material world to res extensa<\/em>\u2014extended substance, pure spatiality. The world became a vast geometric system of coordinates, where every being could be located, measured, and predicted. Reality became a map, and the map became the territory. To know meant to represent, to place within a grid of intelligibility, to reduce the ineffable to the measurable. The consequences of this geometricization have been profound and far-reaching. By reducing Being to extension, philosophy lost sight of the very nature of existence\u2014its dynamism, its creativity, its unpredictability. The world became a machine, a clockwork of deterministic laws, and the human being became a spectator\u2014an isolated consciousness observing a universe that was fundamentally alien, external, other. The intimacy between subject and world, the participative relationship that characterized pre-modern thought, was shattered. Knowledge became power, observation became domination, and truth became correspondence\u2014a mirroring of an external reality that the subject could never fully enter. The “misery of geometricization”\u2014the reduction of the infinite, paradoxical richness of existence to the flat, two-dimensional plane of a Euclidean diagram. The geometric prison of Being is a prison precisely because it cannot contain the full reality of what Being is. It can only capture its shadows, its projections onto the wall of representation, while the living, dynamic, self-creating reality of existence escapes through every crack.<\/p>\n

The Tyranny of Identity and Non-Contradiction<\/h2>\n

The second pillar of classical ontology is the logic of identity\u2014the principle of non-contradiction formulated by Aristotle as the most fundamental law of thought. This principle states that a thing cannot simultaneously be and not be, in the same respect, at the same time. A is A, and A is never not-A. Identity is absolute; difference is secondary; contradiction is forbidden. This logical principle has been the foundation not only of philosophy but of all systematic knowledge \u2014science, law, mathematics, ethics. Without it, there could be no certainty, no rational discourse, no stable framework for thought. And yet, this very foundation has also functioned as a prison, excluding from the realm of the thinkable all that is paradoxical, ambiguous, contradictory\u2014all that refuses to be reduced to a fixed, unchanging identity. The tyranny of identity has had profound consequences for philosophy. It has made it impossible to think the dynamic nature of existence, the fact that things change, that they evolve, that they are never simply identical with themselves. It has forced thought to conceive of becoming as a series of static states, of process as a sequence of fixed moments, of transformation as a superficial alteration of an underlying substance that remains unchanged. The real\u2014becoming, flux, the ceaseless creativity of existence\u2014has been hidden behind a veil of conceptual stability, a stability that is entirely a product of the mind’s need for order Moreover, the principle of non-contradiction has made it impossible to think paradox\u2014the simultaneous existence of opposites, the co-presence of being and non-being, the co- emergence of unity and multiplicity. And yet, paradox is everywhere: in the quantum realm, light is both wave and particle; in the human realm, freedom is both real and constrained; in the realm of the sacred, the finite contains the infinite; in the realm of the self, identity is both stable and fluid. The refusal to think paradox has forced philosophy into a perpetual evasion, a flight from the very richness of reality into the sterile comforts of abstract consistency.<\/p>\n

The Inaccessible Infinite<\/h2>\n

The third pillar of the classical prison is the finite conception of infinity. The Western tradition has almost always understood the infinite as an inaccessible horizon, a limit that can be approached but never reached, a goal that is forever deferred, a promise that is never fulfilled. This finite conception of the infinite has its roots in Aristotle’s definition of the infinite as that beyond which there is always something\u2014a never-ending addition, an endless series, a perpetually receding frontier. This conception has had two major consequences. First, it has placed the infinite outside the world, beyond the reach of finite beings. The infinite has become a theological concept\u2014the transcendence of God, the ineffable mystery beyond all categories. Second, it has made the finite the only reality, the only object of genuine knowledge. What can be measured, bounded, and completed\u2014only this is truly real. The infinite is a luxury, a speculative excess, a concept that points beyond experience but cannot ground it. This dual movement\u2014the exile of the infinite and the absolutization of the finite\u2014has produced a profound impoverishment of philosophical thought. The infinite has been transformed from an immanent reality, a constitutive dimension of existence, into a distant ideal, a regulative principle without ontological weight. The finite has been elevated to the status of ultimate reality, and yet the finite, by itself, is incomplete, fragmentary, and meaningless. The result has been a philosophy that is simultaneously arrogant and desperate\u2014arrogant in its claim to know finite reality completely, desperate in its acknowledgment that finite reality alone cannot satisfy the deepest human longing for meaning, truth, and transcendence.<\/p>\n

Zero and Infinity\u2014The Deep Relationship<\/h1>\n

Zero as Infinity’s Expression<\/h2>\n

The central insight of dimensionless ontology is that zero and infinity are not opposites but expressions of the same fundamental reality. This insight begins with a recognition that zero\u2014 the void, the negation, the absolute absence\u2014is not simply nothing. It is, rather, the condition of possibility for everything. Zero is not a lack but a potency, not an emptiness but a plenitude- in-waiting, not the end of meaning but the origin of all meaning. This is not mysticism but precise philosophy. Consider the simplest of observations: without zero, there can be no system of numeration, no concept of place-value, no ability to distinguish between 1 and 10, between 10 and 100. Zero is not a number like others; it is the number that makes numbers possible. It is the prior condition, the formal condition, the ontological ground. It is the absence that enables presence\u2014the silence that makes speech possible, the void that allows being to emerge, the nothing that gives birth to everything. This is precisely the paradox that the Western tradition has refused to think: that non-being is not the opposite of being but its secret ground. The tradition, terrified of the abyss, has tried to think being without non-being, presence without absence, plenitude without void. But this is impossible. The very concept of being is meaningful only against the background of non-being; the very structure of presence is sustained by the possibility of absence; the very reality of the finite is constituted by its relation to the infinite. The relationship between zero and infinity is, therefore, not a contradiction but a dynamic interdependence. Zero is not the negation of infinity; it is infinity’s most intimate expression. Infinity, in turn, is not the transcendence of zero; it is zero’s self-relation, zero’s dynamic unfolding, zero’s becoming explicit. To put it differently: zero is infinity as potential, infinity is zero as actualization. They are two moments of the same process, two sides of the same coin.<\/p>\n

Infinity as Zero’s Self-Disclosure<\/h2>\n

If zero is the silent ground, infinity is the voice that speaks from this ground. Infinity is not the opposite of the void but its plenitude, not the escape from nothingness but the full revelation of what nothingness contains. In a dimensionless ontology, infinity is not a quantity\u2014not a number larger than all numbers\u2014but a quality, a way of being that emerges when zero opens itself to its own depths. This understanding of infinity is deeply paradoxical, and this is precisely its virtue. The paradox is this: infinity is not “more” than zero; it is zero as infinite. It is the discovery that the void, when truly entered, is not empty but full; that the abyss, when truly gazed into, is not depthless but bottomless; that the silence, when truly heard, is not void of sound but full of the music of the spheres. The relationship between zero and infinity is thus a relationship of self-relation. Zero is the subject; infinity is the predicate. But the predicate is not external to the subject; it is the subject’s own self-expression. Zero, in its very nothingness, contains the seed of all that is; infinity is the flowering of this seed. To understand the relationship between zero and infinity is to understand that the void is not empty but pregnant, that nothingness is not barren but creative, that absence is not loss but the deepest form of presence.<\/p>\n

The Self-Referential Paradox at the Heart of Reality<\/h2>\n

The relationship between zero and infinity is inherently paradoxical\u2014a paradox that classical logic cannot resolve and must, therefore, exclude. But dimensionless ontology does not exclude this paradox; it embraces it, recognizing it as the very source of reality’s dynamism, creativity, and meaning. The paradox is this: zero is the origin of all, but it is also the outcome; infinity is the expression of all, but it is also the hidden ground. They are both simultaneous and sequential, both cause and effect, both the alpha and the omega. This self-referential paradox \u2014the circularity of zero and infinity, the mutual implication of nothingness and wholeness\u2014is what generates reality. It is the engine of existence, the generative principle that produces all beings and all worlds. In dimensionless ontology, reality is not a linear chain of causes and effects but a spiral of self-reference, a dynamic loop in which zero and infinity continuously produce each other, continuously fold into each other, continuously give birth to each other. This self-referential structure has been glimpsed in various philosophical traditions. In Neoplatonism, the One generates multiplicity through a process of self-transcendence that is also a return to itself. In Hegel’s dialectic, the Absolute realizes itself through a process of self- othering and reconciliation. In the apophatic traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, God is known as both utter transcendence (infinity) and utter immanence (zero). But in all these traditions, the paradox is ultimately resolved\u2014into a higher synthesis, a mystical union, a divine simplicity. In dimensionless ontology, the paradox is not resolved; it is maintained, sustained, lived. The truth is not the resolution but the paradox itself.<\/p>\n

The Dimensionless Ontology<\/h1>\n

Beyond Spatialized Being<\/h2>\n

The dimensionless ontology emerging from the relationship between zero and infinity begins with a radical departure: it abandons the concept of dimension altogether. In classical philosophy, dimension is the fundamental framework for understanding existence\u2014the extension in space, the duration in time, the position in a coordinate system. Dimension is what gives beings their place, their identity, their measurability. It is the very condition of objectivity, the possibility of science, the foundation of knowledge. But what if dimension is not the condition of reality but a projection, a limitation, a reduction? What if reality is not extended in space and time but, in its deepest nature, is dimensionless\u2014a pure intensity, a pure relation, a pure event that cannot be located or measured? This is the radical hypothesis of dimensionless ontology: that the true nature of Being is not spatialized but relational, not extended but intensive, not dimensional but dimensionless.<\/p>\n

The shift is not merely conceptual but ontological. It requires that we abandon the notion that beings are things that occupy space and instead understand them as relations that occur. The being of a being is not its position in a grid but its participation in a relationship. A being exists to the extent that it relates, not to the extent that it is located. The relationship is not something that happens between beings; it is the very substance of beings. Beings do not pre-exist their relations; they are born from them, and they die when the relations dissolve. This has profound consequences for our understanding of reality. If reality is relational and dimensionless, then the classical categories of substance, attribute, and accident become meaningless. Beings are not substances with properties; they are knots of relation, nodes in a network, intensities in a field. Knowledge, then, is not the accurate representation of substances but the faithful participation in relations. Truth is not correspondence but connection, not adequation but response, not reflection but resonance.<\/p>\n

The Grammar of the A-Dimensional<\/h2>\n

Dimensionless ontology requires a new grammar, a new language for speaking about reality. This grammar is radically different from the grammar of classical ontology, which is a grammar of nouns\u2014substantives, objects, things. The grammar of the dimensionless is a grammar of verbs, of processes, of events. It does not speak of being as a state but of beings as a becoming, not of identity as a given but of identification as a process, not of presence as a fact but of presencing as an event. In this grammar, the fundamental category is not the noun but the relation. The relation is not a relation between pre-existing entities; it is the entity itself. To say “x relates to y” is to say that x and y are constituted by this relation, that they exist only in and through this relation. They are not two things that happen to relate; they are two poles of a single relation, two aspects of a single event.<\/p>\n

The grammar of the dimensionless also requires a new understanding of quantity and quality. In classical ontology, quantity is the attribute that can be measured; quality is the attribute that cannot. But in dimensionless ontology, both quantity and quality are redefined in terms of relation. Quantity is not a property of beings but a measure of the intensity of relation\u2014the degree to which a being participates in the network of relations. Quality is not an ineffable attribute but a mode of relation, a way of being-in-relation. This grammar has radical implications for epistemology. If reality is a network of relations, then knowledge is not the accurate representation of an external world but the faithful participation in this network. Knowledge is not objective but participative; it does not mirror but engages; it does not observe but enacts. The knower is not a spectator but a participant, not a subject but a node in the network, not an observer but a co-creator.<\/p>\n

Zero and Infinity as the A-Dimensional Structure<\/h2>\n

The relationship between zero and infinity is the fundamental structure of dimensionless ontology. It is the archetypal relation, the model for all other relations. This relation is a- dimensional precisely because it cannot be located, measured, or plotted. It is not in space or time; it is the condition of space and time, the background against which all dimensions appear. Zero and infinity are the two poles of this relationship. Zero is the pole of immanence, the point of absolute presence, the moment of complete self-identity. Infinity is the pole of transcendence, the horizon of absolute absence, the moment of complete otherness. But neither pole exists independently; each is constituted by its relation to the other. Zero is zero only in relation to infinity; infinity is infinity only in relation to zero. They are not two things but one relation, a relation that is itself the most fundamental reality. This relation is also the structure of selfhood, the structure of the subject, the structure of the self-aware mind. The self is a zero that experiences itself as infinity\u2014a finite being that recognizes itself as a point in an infinite network, a limited consciousness that participates in an unlimited reality. The self is the site of the relation, the locus where zero and infinity meet, the moment where the a- dimensional becomes explicit. This is why, as the philosopher Nontas Koukas suggests, the “a- dimensional observer” is not outside the system but is the system itself\u2014the point where the whole becomes conscious of its own structure.<\/p>\n

The Human Being as the Site of the Paradox<\/h1>\n

Consciousness as the Mirror of the Relation<\/h2>\n

The human being, in dimensionless ontology, is the privileged site where the relationship between zero and infinity becomes explicit. This does not mean that the human being is ontologically superior to other beings; it means that human consciousness is the mirror in which the a-dimensional structure of reality is reflected, the place where the paradox is not only experienced but known, the event where the relationship is not only lived but understood. Human consciousness is itself a zero that experiences infinity. It is a finite point that contains an infinite depth, a limited perspective that opens onto unlimited horizons, a temporary event that participates in eternal reality. The human being is neither a substance nor a subject nor a self; it is an event, a relation, a process\u2014a moment in the ongoing self-relation of zero and infinity, a node in the network of relations that constitutes reality.<\/p>\n

This understanding of consciousness has profound implications for epistemology. Knowledge is not the possession of information but the enactment of relation. To know is to enter into a relation, to participate in a network, to become a node in the structure of reality. Knowledge is not objective but participative; it does not observe but engages; it does not represent but creates. The knower is not a spectator but a participant, not a subject but a node, not an observer but a co-creator. This is why the relationship between zero and infinity is not merely a conceptual speculation but a lived experience. The human being experiences this relationship in every moment of awareness, every moment of self-reflection, every moment of contact with the world. The self is a zero that knows itself as infinity; the world is an infinity that reveals itself to zero. The relationship is not a theory but a practice\u2014a way of being, a mode of existence, a path of transformation.<\/p>\n

Ethics and the Responsibility of the Paradox<\/h2>\n

If the human being is the site where the relationship between zero and infinity becomes explicit, then the human being bears a unique responsibility\u2014the responsibility to live this relationship, to embody it, to enact it in the world. This responsibility is not a burden but a gift, not a duty but a calling, not an obligation but a privilege. The ethical implication of dimensionless ontology is radical: the human being must live the paradox, must embrace the contradiction, must accept the a-dimensional structure of reality. This means accepting that identity is not fixed but fluid, that knowledge is not certain but open, that truth is not static but dynamic. It means accepting that the self is not a stable entity but a process, not a substance but a relation, not a thing but an event. This is the ethics of the a-dimensional: the ethics of living in the tension between zero and infinity, between immanence and transcendence, between presence and absence. It is an ethics of openness, of responsiveness, of vulnerability. It requires that the human being be willing to change, to grow, to be transformed by the relations it enters. It requires that the human being be willing to let go of certainty, to embrace ambiguity, to accept the paradox as the very structure of existence. This ethics is also an ethics of participation, of solidarity, of community. If reality is a network of relations, then every being is connected to every other, every action has consequences for the whole, every decision is a participation in the ongoing creation of the world. The human being is not an isolated monad but a node in a network, not an autonomous agent but a co-creator, not a sovereign subject but a participant in a shared project. This is the ethics of the a-dimensional: the ethics of relationship, the ethics of connection, the ethics of love.<\/p>\n

The Redemption of the Finite<\/h2>\n

The finite, in dimensionless ontology, is not a limitation to be overcome but an expression of the infinite to be cherished. The finite is not the opposite of the infinite but its manifestation; the infinite is not the escape from the finite but its fulfillment. This is a radical reversal of the traditional Western understanding, which has tended to see finitude as a curse, a fall, a limitation to be transcended. In dimensionless ontology, finitude is redeemed. The finite is not a prison but a window, not a restriction but a focus, not a closing but an opening. The finite is the concrete expression of the infinite, the particular manifestation of the universal, the historical embodiment of the eternal. The infinite, without the finite, is abstract and empty; the finite, without the infinite, is trivial and meaningless. Together, they are the fullness of reality\u2014 the a-dimensional structure of existence, the dynamic relation of zero and infinity.<\/p>\n

This redemption of the finite has profound implications for human life. It means that the human being is not a fallen angel, a prisoner in a body, a soul trapped in matter. It means that the human being is the expression of the infinite in the finite, the embodiment of the eternal in the temporal, the manifestation of the absolute in the relative. It means that human life is not a preparation for another life but the very site of the divine, the place where the infinite is revealed, the moment where the eternal becomes present. This is the final insight of dimensionless ontology: that the relationship between zero and infinity is not a distant concept but a lived reality, not an abstract theory but a concrete practice, not a philosophical speculation but an existential truth. The human being is the living proof of this relationship, the embodied evidence of this truth, the enacted reality of this love.<\/p>\n

The Philosophical Implications<\/h1>\n

The Reconfiguration of Truth<\/h2>\n

The dimensionless ontology we have been exploring reconfigures the very concept of truth. Truth is no longer understood as correspondence\u2014the adequation of thought to reality, the mirroring of an external world in an internal representation. Truth is no longer understood as coherence\u2014the logical consistency of a system of propositions. Truth is understood as event\u2014 the event of relation, the event of participation, the event of love. Truth is not a property of propositions but a quality of relationships. A proposition is true to the extent that it participates in the network of relations, to the extent that it connects, to the extent that it opens. Truth is not objective; it is relational. It does not correspond to a pre-existing reality; it creates reality, participates in its creation, co-constitutes it. Truth is not a representation but a performance, not a statement but a song, not a picture but a dance. This reconfiguration of truth has radical implications for all fields of human activity. In science, truth is no longer the accurate prediction of external events but the faithful participation in the processes of nature. In art, truth is no longer the faithful representation of reality but the creative expression of the relationship between the artist and the world. In ethics, truth is no longer the conformity to a moral law but the authentic enactment of relation.<\/p>\n

The Reconfiguration of Self<\/h2>\n

Dimensionless ontology also reconfigures the understanding of the self. The self is no longer a substance, a thing, an object. It is no longer a subject, an observer, a consciousness that stands apart from the world. It is a relation\u2014a node in the network of reality, a point of connection, an event in the ongoing self-relation of zero and infinity. The self is a zero that experiences itself as infinity\u2014a finite point that opens onto unlimited depths, a limited consciousness that participates in eternal reality. The self is not a possession but a process, not a state but a becoming, not a thing but an event. It is the locus of the relation, the site of the paradox, the moment where the a-dimensional becomes explicit. This reconfiguration has profound implications for human life. It means that the self is not a fixed identity but a fluid process, not a stable entity but a dynamic relation. It means that the self is not autonomous but relational, not isolated but connected, not sovereign but participative. It means that the self is not a monad but a node, not a subject but a participant, not an observer but a co-creator.<\/p>\n

The Reconfiguration of God<\/h2>\n

Finally, dimensionless ontology reconfigures the understanding of the divine. God is no longer a being, no longer an entity, no longer a substance that exists somewhere. God is the relation\u2014 the relationship between zero and infinity, the dynamic self-relation of being, the a-dimensional structure of reality. This is not atheism; it is the radical rethinking of theism, a rethinking that transcends both theism and atheism. God is not a being among beings, not a cause among causes, not a principle among principles. God is the very structure of existence, the very fabric of reality, the very movement of being. God is not something to believe in but something to participate in, not something to worship but something to embody, not something to seek but something to be. This reconfiguration of God has profound implications for spirituality. Spirituality is no longer the search for an external deity but the cultivation of the internal relation, the deepening of the connection, the intensification of the participation. Spirituality is not the ascent to another world but the descent into this world, not the escape from the finite but the embrace of the finite, not the flight from the self but the transformation of the self.<\/p>\n

Living the Paradox<\/h1>\n

The relationship between zero and infinity is the fundamental structure of reality, the a- dimensional ground of all that is. This relationship is paradoxical\u2014zero is infinity’s hidden ground, infinity is zero’s explicit expression. It is self-referential\u2014zero and infinity are the two poles of a single relation, each constituted by the other. It is dynamic\u2014zero and infinity continuously generate each other, continuously fold into each other, continuously give birth to each other. The dimensionless ontology that emerges from this relationship offers a radical alternative to the dominant paradigms of Western metaphysics. It transcends the dualisms of being and non-being, unity and multiplicity, finitude and infinitude. It reconfigures the concepts of truth, self, and God. It opens the way to a new understanding of existence as participation, knowledge as relation, and ethics as love.<\/p>\n

But this ontology is not merely a conceptual construction; it is a lived reality, a concrete practice, an existential truth. To live this ontology is to live the paradox\u2014to embrace the contradiction, to accept the tension, to inhabit the ambiguity. It is to be the zero that knows itself as infinity, the finite that opens to the infinite, the human that participates in the divine. It is to recognize that the relationship between zero and infinity is not a distant concept but a present reality, not an abstract theory but an embodied truth, not a philosophical speculation but a way of life. The human being is the living proof of this relationship. In every moment of awareness, the human being experiences the paradox of zero and infinity\u2014the finite self that contains infinite depths, the limited perspective that opens onto unlimited horizons, the temporary event that participates in eternal reality. To live fully is to live this paradox, to embrace this contradiction, to enact this relationship. This is the ultimate meaning of dimensionless ontology: that the relationship between zero and infinity is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be lived, not a theory to be understood but a path to be walked, not a concept to be grasped but a love to be embodied. The zero and the infinity are not two things but one relation\u2014the relation of being itself, the structure of existence, the fabric of reality. And to live this relation is to live fully, to live authentically, to live as the human being is meant to live \u2014as the site where zero and infinity meet, where the finite and the infinite embrace, where the a-dimensional structure of reality becomes explicit, where the paradox is not only known but lived, not only understood but embodied, not only conceptualized but loved.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Relationship and the Emergence of Dimensionless Ontology Western philosophy has always been haunted by two abysses: nothingness and wholeness, zero and infinity. These two concepts have functioned as the extreme poles of metaphysical thought\u2014the absolute negation and the absolute plenitude, the void that threatens all meaning and the totality that exceeds all comprehension. Yet, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1885,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-articles-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1941"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1941\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1942,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1941\/revisions\/1942"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1885"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alexis.proweb.gr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}