The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Iolaus]

Divine said,

We have existence, awareness, and energy. Well, OK, what is existence? Is it simply being with no awareness? Is it inanimate thing-ness? There is nothing actually inanimate anywhere, not even (dun dun dun!) the immutable absolute! If everything is animate, "animation" (lol) being a property of the absolute, existence needs awareness. Otherwise, existence is no different from non-existence, as far as the existent thing is concerned.

This is an interesting point, yet not quite true. Existence would still be different from nonexistence, but rather futile. But yes, a very interesting thought to ponder. Without awareness, what can it mean to exist?

Jehu,

It is not that I did not understand what you were saying, but that I did not understand why you were making such a claim. Have we not agreed that there is only being (existence), and no non-being (non-existence), and have you not just reaffirmed that agreement in your last post? Why then are your asserting here that ‘illusions’ (maya) are “not in existence itself”? Does it not follow, that if there is ‘only being’ (that which exists), that we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist?

I never said it didn't exist. Rather, that when we refer to things as being not real, or refer to them as the Hindus do as maya, I am clarifying that the illusion lies not in the things themselves, as in calling them not real, but in their apparent differences, which are an illusion.

for if there is only being, and naught else, then it follows that the realm of being must be a singular, continuous and unbounded realm. Further, it follows that if things do not differ in their ‘existential being’, then there must be an other mode of being wherein they do differ – their ‘essential being’.

Yes, perhaps this is what I have tried to say.

[Jehu]

Jehu,

It is not that I did not understand what you were saying, but that I did not understand why you were making such a claim. Have we not agreed that there is only being (existence), and no non-being (non-existence), and have you not just reaffirmed that agreement in your last post? Why then are your asserting here that ‘illusions’ (maya) are “not in existence itself”? Does it not follow, that if there is ‘only being’ (that which exists), that we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist?

I never said it didn't exist. Rather, that when we refer to things as being not real, or refer to them as the Hindus do as maya, I am clarifying that the illusion lies not in the things themselves, as in calling them not real, but in their apparent differences, which are an illusion.

for if there is only being, and naught else, then it follows that the realm of being must be a singular, continuous and unbounded realm. Further, it follows that if things do not differ in their ‘existential being’, then there must be an other mode of being wherein they do differ – their ‘essential being’.

Yes, perhaps this is what I have tried to say.

Good, then let us proceed.

Now, it has long been held that each thing comprise a unique set of characteristics which are essential to that thing’s being ‘what it is’. These ‘essential characteristics’ are individually called the ‘elements’ of the thing, while collectively they are called it ‘essence’.

The essential being of a thing then is related to it constitution (what it comprises), and there are only two ways in which a thing may be constituted: either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (constitutive and operative), or it is dependent upon extrinsic causes; there being no other alternative.[law of excluded middle]

Then, if there is more than one mode of being, which there must necessarily be, and given that there are only these two possible way in which these modes may be constituted, it follows that there are only two modes of being, and that one mode is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and the other is not.

Is this not so?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

The essential being of a thing then is related to it constitution (what it comprises), and there are only two ways in which a thing may be constituted: either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (constitutive and operative), or it is dependent upon extrinsic causes; there being no other alternative.[law of excluded middle]

Then, if there is more than one mode of being, which there must necessarily be, and given that there are only these two possible way in which these modes may be constituted, it follows that there are only two modes of being, and that one mode is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and the other is not.

Is this not so?

Yes, but we covered this at the beginning. I do sometimes have a hard time keeping up with all the new terminology for things which could be more plainly stated, like constitutive and operative causes and the like.

[divine focus]

Not necessarily. I'd say the mutable can change only because of the immutable, which is immutable only from the perspective of the mutable. That's the best I can do :-), with these fun words.

Have I not said repeatedly that the two (absolute and relative) are interdependent and complementary? Nevertheless, we are analysing each aspect in terms of its own unique characteristics, and so whatever characteristic may be predicated of the one, cannot logically be predicated of its complement.

Is this not so?

Not really. A characteristic could belong to both without being unique to either. For the sake of clarity, we can say one is immutable and one is mutable, but that's not the full story.

[Dave Toast]

I'd be grateful if you to start again Jehu, point by point, everything up to now.

For the sake of clarity, try where possible to use one term, i.e. being or existence, and stick with that same term.

And it wold be nice to know where you're heading eventually too. I presume this will be beyond 'the nature of existence is essentially congnizant', which is implicit in the premise 'to exist is to stand before mind'?

[Iolaus]

Dave,

Existence is existent.
Non-existence is non-existent.

Being is.
Non-being is not.

But if you think about it, perhaps you can see that there can be no non-existence. We suppose that we can imagine such a thing, but when you try you realize the impossibility of it.

I for one find existence itself an astonishing fact, and an impossible puzzle. Yet I get a clue about it when I see that nonexistence is even more completely impossible than existence. So there seems to be no choice about it.

I'd be grateful if you to start again Jehu, point by point, everything up to now.

It would be the second time he started over on this thread. Let's see if he does it! But I think it would be good for him to have his entire premise laid out and saved in a file somewhere, just for this reason that it is hard to follow through it point by point without getting lost. But he also wants to go through the points, gaining acceptance one by one. The first page of this thread contains most of it.

[Jehu]

To all,

I would be most happy to start the enquiry anew, but we must first lay down some guidelines, as it is exceedingly difficult to carry on a multiplicity of separate enquiries at one time. First, I should like to know who exactly will be participating in the enquiry, and if someone should wish to join in at a later point, it will then be incumbent upon that individual to familiarize themselves with what has gone before. Then, I should like your assurance that you will accept the primacy of the three laws of thought, and evoke no other principles or axioms in support of your arguments. And finally, I should like you each to respond to each individual step in the enquiry, and say whether you concur or not; and if you do not, to provide a rational as to why you hold my argument to be invalid. And finally, I respectfully request that you put forward no theories or opinions, but confine yourselves to the points in question.

On my part, I will ensure that every technical term which I introduce will be clearly defined, and will provide historical or etymological evidence of it proper philosophical usage – as required. Further, I shall make every effort to ensure that the concerns of each participant is fully addressed, before continuing to the next step.

What do you all say?

[Iolaus]

Well, sigh, it may take a while to get back up to speed...

I have never heard of the three laws of thought.

I'll try to use less of opinions or theories, but sometimes we bring them up as a way to bolster our arguments, to say, well this is how I have viewed the case up till now, because of this or that theory or impression--but I will try to be dry and juiceless!

As to the technical terms, I just wonder why they are needed at all. What happens is that I understand them when they are explained, but as the discussion goes on, since they basically mean nothing without explanation, I find it difficult to understand without painstakingly rereading, and then translating. Not that I can't learn jargon. I don't want to be difficult and I want you to go ahead in the way that best suits you to explain things. Use them as you see fit.

Now it seems to me that I have already agreed to at least the first three or four of your arguments.

[Dave Toast]

To all,

I would be most happy to start the enquiry anew, but we must first lay down some guidelines, as it is exceedingly difficult to carry on a multiplicity of separate enquiries at one time. First, I should like to know who exactly will be participating in the enquiry, and if someone should wish to join in at a later point, it will then be incumbent upon that individual to familiarize themselves with what has gone before. Then, I should like your assurance that you will accept the primacy of the three laws of thought, and evoke no other principles or axioms in support of your arguments. And finally, I should like you each to respond to each individual step in the enquiry, and say whether you concur or not; and if you do not, to provide a rational as to why you hold my argument to be invalid. And finally, I respectfully request that you put forward no theories or opinions, but confine yourselves to the points in question.

On my part, I will ensure that every technical term which I introduce will be clearly defined, and will provide historical or etymological evidence of it proper philosophical usage – as required. Further, I shall make every effort to ensure that the concerns of each participant is fully addressed, before continuing to the next step.

What do you all say?

I think the problem of distraction from the basics of validating premises and conclusions, i.e. elaboration and discussion, is unavoidable and understandable. It would therefore seem convenient to take it to the Crucible and separate the two. The 'debate' (such as it would be) could take the form of someone of your choosing succinctly either validating or questioning the validity of the premises and conclusions you lay out. The discussion thread would then be the place where you deal with elaboration and discussion, isolated from the simplified reference thread.

[Iolaus]

That doesn't excite me, as I have participated throughout and am interested in going on, rather than watching it in a debate format.

I might agree in the debate but what if someone else doesn't get the point? I actually thought the process was working well enough but you dropped out and then came back.

[Dave Toast]

I've had plenty to say on various points Bird but I refrained from doing so because I didn't want to complicate what Jehu's trying to do. As it stands, nobody's going to be arsed working their way through all of this and the progression of Jehu's syllogisms are all but lost. We're now half way down page 9 and we've got next to nowhere in that regard. As subjects of import are being addressed, imagine someone genuinely interested wading through those 9 pages and finding only half an argument, running to perhaps a third of a page.

I just thought it would be a good way of splitting the syllogisms from the discussion thereof. I can't imagine the debate thread would have much in the way of real debate going on, maybe just a bit of analysis and pointers for those interested. The discussion thread would benefit structurally.

On the other hand, there's no reason why it can't carry on as is and, if by the time we get to the end of it, something of undeniable importance is explicated, then perhaps it could be layed out in all its glory, once and for all. I'm just making suggestions, it's up to Jehu really.

I'm sure you could get exited by the possibility of an answer to your life/death conundrum, no matter what form its expression takes ;->

[brokenhead]

Yes, Dave's right, that's what the Crucible is for.

[Iolaus]

I'm sure you could get exited by the possibility of an answer to your life/death conundrum, no matter what form its expression takes ;->

Yes, that is so, and some related concerns about reality and the self.

So yeah, whatever seems best.

[Jehu]

Well, sigh, it may take a while to get back up to speed...

I have never heard of the three laws of thought.

Well, then let us begin with the three laws of thought, for it is imperative that we understand those laws which will govern our progress.

The foremost law is the ‘Principle of Identity’, and it states that “everything is the same with itself, but different from another thing”. This principle has its origin in the very nature of language, for as words are pointers of a sort, it is critical that we know precisely what it is that they point to. For this reason, we may call a given thing by as many names as we like, such as is the case with different languages, however, we cannot call two different things by the same name - else we cannot be certain that the meaning conveyed by the word is the intended one.

From the ‘Principle of Identity’, there logically follows two corollaries: (1) the ‘Principle of Contradiction’, which says that a thing cannot, at the same time, be both possessed of a certain characteristic and void of that same characteristic; and (2) the ‘Principle of Excluded Middle’, which says that a things must either be possessed of a given characteristics or void of it, there being no intermediate alternative.

I'll try to use less of opinions or theories, but sometimes we bring them up as a way to bolster our arguments, to say, well this is how I have viewed the case up till now, because of this or that theory or impression--but I will try to be dry and juiceless!

I think that you will find that the Truth, as it starts to reveal itself, will be quite juicy enough.

As to the technical terms, I just wonder why they are needed at all. What happens is that I understand them when they are explained, but as the discussion goes on, since they basically mean nothing without explanation, I find it difficult to understand without painstakingly rereading, and then translating. Not that I can't learn jargon. I don't want to be difficult and I want you to go ahead in the way that best suits you to explain things. Use them as you see fit.

Technical definitions are an absolute necessity, for there are many dissimilar though related meanings to most terms, and it is vital that we all understand exactly which meaning we are to attach to that term. For example, when I defined the term ‘essence’ to mean ‘the collective set of characteristics which are essential to a thing’s being what it is’ or ‘the constitutive causes of the thing’, it is this meaning that I am intending to convey whenever I utilize the term; and if you do not interpret it is this precise manner, then you will not truly understand what I am trying to say.

Can we all agree on these points?

[Iolaus]

Yes.

It turns out I am familiar with the three laws of thought, I just had not heard of them gathered together under that term before.

[divine focus]

All these rules!! >:

The foremost law is the ‘Principle of Identity’, and it states that “everything is the same with itself, but different from another thing”. This principle has its origin in the very nature of language, for as words are pointers of a sort, it is critical that we know precisely what it is that they point to.

These are laws of language, right? "Thinking?" You can only be so precise with language, since language isn't pointing to itself. Language needs experience to reveal actual Laws. It can't communicate them by itself if the receiver has no experience to relate the language to.

[Leyla Shen]

The doctrine of IS went walking one day
As usual, WAS wasn’t too far away
“Hey! Where’s WILL BE,” WAS heard IS say
“I gave him to you--just yesterday!”
“This cannot BE!” IS worried away
“How can I be if WILL BE WAS my way?”

[Iolaus]

DF

These are laws of language, right? "Thinking?" You can only be so precise with language, since language isn't pointing to itself. Language needs experience to reveal actual Laws. It can't communicate them by itself if the receiver has no experience to relate the language to.

That is quite true, but we all do have that experience.

Actually, I don't think it is a law of thinking or of language. Altho he called it as such. Rather, the language reflects an actual physical law. It reflects reality.

[Jehu]

It turns out I am familiar with the three laws of thought, I just had not heard of them gathered together under that term before.

Yes, I thought you might be.

I have given it a great deal of thought, and I feel that the reason you are not yet convinced of the need for a cognizant agent, is that you do not fully understand the nature of the relative entity. Therefore, I feel that we should examine this concept once again, and see if we cannot get a clearer picture of what a relative entity actually is.

The relative entity, given that it is completely dependent upon extrinsic causes, has no intrinsic causes whatsoever. Then, unlike the absolute entity, which has a necessary existence, the relative entity’s existence is contingent upon the coming together of its extrinsic cause. Consequently, in order that a relative entity come to be, not only must its extrinsic causes already exist, they must also be brought into the appropriate relationship; and what’s more, they must maintain their relationship, if such an entity is to persist. These extrinsic causes are of two sorts, (1) those that account for the essence (qualities) of the entity, and (2) those which account for the entity’s form (relationship).

The realm of the relative entity may be likened to a shadow theatre, which when perceived by a cognizant agent, takes on the appearance of a multitude of independent entities which seemingly move about and interact with one another. However, in truth, they are nothing more than the play of a light source and an opaque object; two extrinsic causes. In the shadow analogy, the light source is the ‘constitutive cause’, for it is the variations in the intensity of the light that renders the shadow perceptible to the mind; and the opaque object is its ‘operative cause’, for it is the opaque object that gives the shadow its recognizable appearance or identity.

We are accustomed to thinking (erroneously) that at some time a thing does not exist, and that at some later time the thing comes to exist, and then that after some time, it ceases to exist; but this is not logically tenable. In truth, such things are no more than the amalgamation of there extrinsic causes, and have no existence apart from those causes. Consequently, they neither come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere, and there is no persisting either; except in the mind of a cognizant observer.

[Jehu]

Actually, I don't think it is a law of thinking or of language. Altho he called it as such. Rather, the language reflects an actual physical law. It reflects reality.

You are absolute correct! It reflects the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’. And it is the first principle of Being as well as Thinking.

[mansman]

Good idea, but I dont think you see your harmony is completely conditional. You mind give you false sense of security because you have nice life in front of computer. But under pressure you become dust like anyone else.
Dont argue tho that better choice than massing power, fame and many peso.
thank you Jehu.

It is not wise to prejudge others, for you have no idea what their lives are like, or what they may have had to endure.

Make exception in your case because gave you plenty oportunity to back up claims with personal examples.

What claims have I made that should require me to support them with personal example?

Jehu. If what you believe give the amazing effects you claim then why you resist to tell how changed, improved your life, why you resist tell just one amazing story where you belief keep you in perfect eqaminity in face of great hardship?
Its what you say almost unbelievable to hear, to read, because you are say for instance, if some madman with oportunety and with intention to do you body great suffering, damage that because of you belief or your philosophy YOU would experience zero dread and suffering.
That to hard for me to accept, that YOU or ANY one can be dread, fear, agony free and in "perfect eqanimty", this why I say your belief and teaching is CONDITIOnAL.

Why dont you have guts and say "Yes, if this madman try to do this to me NOT disturb my peace at all" I tell you why you not have guts to say, first because is NOT true you "without fear potential" and 2 because even now in your life with much LESS threat and harm done your body and mind experience unpleasant feeling. You not big enough lier to make these claim for youslef, but YES you are big enough lier (pretender) to act like you not know forum owner or forum owner version of truth, and that you see how both version overlap and seem to point in same direction but using different words. I think you want to hide something or somethings, that you not 100% honest, this why I push you to support your amazing claim with example or with anything at all. I dont see 100% honest person, I see hiding person, who probably already talk with forum teacher and get permission maybe to teach while they take break, maybe you IN with them even! So sorry but this my motivation not lieing reasons you accuse me here.

seem to me that you are more interested in gleaning information on my personal life, or in fostering some sort of conflict between myself and the forum’s owner, than you are in participating in the enquiry.

M wrote:you think because you master of words you can rationilise yourself in defense but we sick of your excuses just come clean and back up your beliefs otherwise be quiet and stop telling us to become like you think like you, stop picking on my poor expression to defend your self stop your bullshit for once and spit out truth and what we want to hear for christ sake! Admit your weakness and failure of your method and admit possible worthlessness of it to because if fail in you then certain to be worthless to students.
thanks Jehu.

[mansman]

Well, sigh, it may take a while to get back up to speed...

I have never heard of the three laws of thought.

Well, then let us begin with the three laws of thought, for it is imperative that we understand those laws which will govern our progress.

The foremost law is the ‘Principle of Identity’, and it states that “everything is the same with itself, but different from another thing”. This principle has its origin in the very nature of language, for as words are pointers of a sort, it is critical that we know precisely what it is that they point to. For this reason, we may call a given thing by as many names as we like, such as is the case with different languages, however, we cannot call two different things by the same name - else we cannot be certain that the meaning conveyed by the word is the intended one.

From the ‘Principle of Identity’, there logically follows two corollaries: (1) the ‘Principle of Contradiction’, which says that a thing cannot, at the same time, be both possessed of a certain characteristic and void of that same characteristic; and (2) the ‘Principle of Excluded Middle’, which says that a things must either be possessed of a given characteristics or void of it, there being no intermediate alternative.

If your car either have petrol, OR not has petrol in it (c2), then ALREADY is it impossible for you car to be both with and without petrol (because of the "OR"), so (c1) is not needed.
Now correct me (in your own mind, anyway) as is your much pleasure to do.
M

[Jehu]

Jehu. If what you believe give the amazing effects you claim then why you resist to tell how changed, improved your life, why you resist tell just one amazing story where you belief keep you in perfect eqaminity in face of great hardship?

Again, I am not here to sell anyone on a belief, but to help others discover what reason can tell us regarding the nature of the phenomenal experience. I know that this is not what you wish to hear, and I am sorry that I cannot give you what it is that you seek. Neither will I tell you the first thing about myself, and if you cannot understand why, then you have entirely missed the point of everything that I have said thus far. Who I am, or what experiences I have had are simply irrelevant to the purpose of this enquiry, for everyone has their own capacity, and everyone must realize their true nature for themselves. Consequently, there is nothing to be gained by hearing how the path unfolded for another, and to introduce such anecdotal evidence would be completely inappropriate in a rational discourse.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

The relative entity, given that it is completely dependent upon extrinsic causes, has no intrinsic causes whatsoever.

Yes, that is quite true. Perhaps the reason I had said that I can't quite envision a relative entity without an inside, is that the thing is made of up the real, that is, of being itself. But you are quite right that it has no intrinsic causes, let us say a chair.

The realm of the relative entity may be likened to a shadow theatre, which when perceived by a cognizant agent, takes on the appearance of a multitude of independent entities which seemingly move about and interact with one another. However, in truth, they are nothing more than the play of a light source and an opaque object; two extrinsic causes. In the shadow analogy, the light source is the ‘constitutive cause’, for it is the variations in the intensity of the light that renders the shadow perceptible to the mind; and the opaque object is its ‘operative cause’, for it is the opaque object that gives the shadow its recognizable appearance or identity.

yes, but here I have the difficulty. We could have a universe of stars and galaxies, with no living beings. Things would have form, i.e., they would be round and surrounded by far less dense space, give off light and heat, without a cognizant being to see it.

But don't the two below phrases contradict? :

Consequently, in order that a relative entity come to be, not only must its extrinsic causes already exist, they must also be brought into the appropriate relationship; and what’s more, they must maintain their relationship, if such an entity is to persist.

We are accustomed to thinking (erroneously) that at some time a thing does not exist, and that at some later time the thing comes to exist, and then that after some time, it ceases to exist; but this is not logically tenable. In truth, such things are no more than the amalgamation of there extrinsic causes, and have no existence apart from those causes. Consequently, they neither come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere, and there is no persisting either; except in the mind of a cognizant observer.

Also

You are absolute correct! It reflects the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’. And it is the first principle of Being as well as Thinking.

But which one am I correct about? I was referring to all 3, altough they are logically related.

[mansman]

Jehu. If what you believe give the amazing effects you claim then why you resist to tell how changed, improved your life, why you resist tell just one amazing story where you belief keep you in perfect eqaminity in face of great hardship?

Again, I am not here to sell anyone on a belief, but to help others discover what reason can tell us regarding the nature of the phenomenal experience. I know that this is not what you wish to hear, and I am sorry that I cannot give you what it is that you seek. Neither will I tell you the first thing about myself, and if you cannot understand why, then you have entirely missed the point of everything that I have said thus far. Who I am, or what experiences I have had are simply irrelevant to the purpose of this enquiry, for everyone has their own capacity, and everyone must realize their true nature for themselves. Consequently, there is nothing to be gained by hearing how the path unfolded for another, and to introduce such anecdotal evidence would be completely inappropriate in a rational discourse.

I knew you had no balls. Smart guy but no balls.