The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Carl G]

The brain, like any other organ, can suffer exhaustion if it is forced to restructure too quickly. Just as we must build new muscle slowly so as to avoid undo discomfort, so too must we restructure the neural networks of our brains slowly. In fact, this is why many turn away from the path of reason, for the “mental gymnastic” that are required to follow it simply exhausts their mental capacity.

Alas that is what has happened to me, with this thread. I confess that my mind has become mush reading it, its contents pablum. Does it contain anything of importance? I cannot say. Obviously nothing I cannot live without. Does it contain reason? I cannot say. I can say it contains exceeding dryness and length. It contains prodigious seriousness and pomp. It has been a huge and fastidious undertaking, a tea ceremony of sorts, at the least. How long will it continue? Possibly until the end of the earthly lives of Jehu and Iolaus.

For the longevity of it, and keeping it as sacrosanct as they have these many months, they are to be commended. It is a church. It is a circular mantra. It is one stone unmovable in the midst of an ever changing world. It is the modern equivalent of the tablet of Moses. It is a book of exchanges, an entire volume which should be published. It is sacred whether or not it is understandable, whether or not it actually contains wisdom. It is more important than Osama Bin Laden or Barack Obama. It is proof of something. I don't know what, but something.

Ignorance comes about in much the same way as when we sentient beings laps into a dream state, and in doing so, forget all the details of our waking lives. Our sentient awareness, having become cut off from the normal mode of accessing the faculty of memory, simply gets confused, and then imagines an entirely new identity within the context of their dream world.

This, for instance, sounds weighty, but does it actually mean anything? All of it has ceased to mean anything to me, so I cannot say. So many words, said with such gravity. It is endless, isn't it. There is no end to the words. Time ceases to exist and Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn smile from their graves.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Ignorance comes about in much the same way as when we sentient beings laps into a dream state, and in doing so, forget all the details of our waking lives. Our sentient awareness, having become cut off from the normal mode of accessing the faculty of memory, simply gets confused, and then imagines an entirely new identity within the context of their dream world.

But how did the fragment get separated? You said there is nothing separating us from the Absolute but ignorance, but that cannot be true if ther are sentient beings. If there is nothing separating us from the Absolute, there should be one being, indivisible.

[Jehu]

But how did the fragment get separated? You said there is nothing separating us from the Absolute but ignorance, but that cannot be true if there are sentient beings.

The awareness associated with the sentient being is no more divorced from the Absolute than is the awareness associated with the dream persona divorced from that of the dreamer. The sentient being and the dream persona are both relative (apparent) entities, and so the former is no more real than is the latter. The idea of a separate (independent) existence is simply that – a thought, while in reality, there is only the Absolute – the thinker.

If there is nothing separating us from the Absolute, there should be one being, indivisible.

Indeed, there is but one indivisible being, nevertheless, there is the appearance of a multitude of different (separate) beings, and this is what causes the confusion, along with the inevitable suffering.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Jehu:

Have you read early Sanskrit literature as contained in the four Vedas.

Your notions are incoherent, murky and blur word-magic with physical reality (up-down, in-out, left-right)!

The only fundamental unity we have that is real is the Big Bang 12-14 billion years ago.

Ontology or the study of being is a well developed topic in scholastic neo-Latin treatises of the 12th to 14th century ACE in Europe. There was a reason that this line of thinking was abandoned by the West---it led to a black hole! It was pompous, pumped-up nonsense on a grand scale!

Comment?

Are you competently trained in ancient Vedic and Classical Sanskrit? I am.

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin, Esq., M.A. (Oxon.)

--

[Jehu]

John,

Have you actually read the entire content of this thread? If so, then would it be unreasonable to ask you where specifically you believe that I have gone astray? If not, then what basis have you to assume that it leads to some sort of “black hole”?

Unfortunately, an extensive scholastic knowledge of philosophy, combined with the erroneous idea that philosophical validity increases over time, can often become an impediment to actual philosophical enquiry.

As to my credentials, I prefer to let my arguments stand or fall upon their logical force, and will willingly engage with anyone who will submit to the laws of reason.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Jehu:

Thank you for your response. I read briefly the opening blogs and the closing blogs. I must confess 30 pages is a little too demanding.

My general impression was airy dullness in this matter. Perchance, sterile neo-Latin treatises on this topic and Sanskrit vedic texts about the Absolute have soiled my philosophical imagination.

I love crisp, sharp and focused language that is concrete and embedded in particularity (as an ancient classical scholar and grammarian), so, perforcely, I was not reading your insights with warm sympathy.

You are, of course, dealing here with old metaphysical realities. Proclus would love your mind! Have you read Proclean scholarship in neo-Platonism?

I just read the Wikipedia article on the philosophical concept of the Absolute [Latin, ab- "away from" + solutus Past participle "that which has been loosen"; solutus is formed from Latin sed-, se- "apart" + luere, "to release"]. Hegel has contaminated the notion in our philosophical tradition, I am afraid.

If you had to reduce to three cogent statements for me about the 'Absolute', what would they be? I find the concept as a pigeon hole to lodge or squeeze all of our ignorance into its vessel. Humanity has outgrown this sort of childish metaphysical thinking.

After all, Wittgenstein did clean up all this philosophical crap in his Tractatus.

But one should keep an open mind! Newer realities reveal the profit and benefit of many old ideas!

Any suggestions for me?


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If you had to reduce to three cogent statements for me about the 'Absolute', what would they be?

The Absolute is everything that exists. Unfortunately, nothing exists.

Humanity has outgrown this sort of childish metaphysical thinking.

Quite right.

Newer realities reveal the profit and benefit of many old ideas!

How can there be more than one reality? I'm pretty sure there isn't even one: Reality isn't anything more than the secular version of God. I am now convinced that you are a polytheist.

After all, Wittgenstein did clean up all this philosophical crap in his Tractatus.

He did what now? Not even Wittgenstein agrees with Wittgenstein. He changed his mind.

Any suggestions for me?

It's not a big deal, but if you know the modern equivalent to a word or phrase, use that.

[Iolaus]

It is odd that I have not found our conversation tedious, dry or dull, and yet find most of philosophy to be so.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Trevor:

Thank you for responding to my blog. I want to deal with some of your intuitions. I generally agree with the tone and substance of your remarks to my comments.

Your statement that "the Absolute is everything, however, unfortunately nothing exists" requires further qualifications or, at least, modifications. The Absolute is the distinction between the Real (in its cosmic dimension) and the phenomenal (the world of shifting appearances). It is not meant as a unitary notion of 'everything', but rather as the source of "everything." That is why philosophers and theologians refer to the Absolute as unfettered Reality or the One (the causal generation of being or existent things).

It would shock you Trevor that it was based on the act of masturbation. The creative first principle or cause as a mythical great god swallowed his own spittle from his act of divine masturbation, and spitted out the spittle to create the series of cosmogonic gods and goddesses who proceeded to create the phenomenal world we know through our sensorium.
This initial god was referred to as the hidden god or the god behind the scenes whom no one sees. Do not forget how ignorant our ancestors were. Their minds worked in a very concrete modality. No hefty abstractions in their language. It requires a learned dead language to increase abstractions in the human mind [The Babylonians used Sumerian; we use Greek and Latin terms]. The notion of the Absolute is fairly a pedestrian concept.

"Fortunately, nothing exists" must also be qualified. Certainly now you are existing and reading this blog. But, of course, from the viewpoint of cosmic history [12 to14 billion years], our existence is non-existence. We will eventually be extinct as an insignificant species among millions of species over the last three billion years on this planet.

Furthermore, we can be viewed as merely compressed energy. Once our energy structure is transformed into matter and back again, we are gone or disappeared.

However, we do have to pay attention to the present moment. We are alive now! It is this temporality and spatial situation, environment and world that matters to our self-conscious Reason. We exist in this nexus or tri-intersectional space of brain, body and world.

My phrase "newer realities" is loose jargon. I am using the term 'reality' in its Latinate sense res, rei "thing" or "the abstract notion of things". Hence, the discoveries of new things by technology and its tools. You are using it in a more refine philosophical sense when you speak of One Reality or Reality with a capital R upper-case letter. Furthermore, I am a theoretical atheist. I dismiss *god or *gods as invented nonsense for king and priests to steal from their fellow man, that is, I view religion as a mere dupery on the human mind by kleptocrats (king and priests who have the power to steal from the work of the people) using propaganda to deceive the people.

Lastly, there were three periods in Wittgenstein's philosophical development; naturally, he advocated and discarded ideas during his fruitful philosophical life (especially, when he had to turn over to Hitler the family's wealth of $25 Million Dollars (in our currency value) to avert death of his siblings in the concentration camps). It requires at least five years to master his considerable corpus in German and English, and this with the help of competently trained commentators.

I will deal with more of your judicious comments when I have further leisure. I do not want to burden your mind nor your patience with unnecessary lengthy words.

If I understand your final comment, you like highly charged word-energetics or emotive, stark language that is monosyllabic, such as "Snark," "Ugh," "Gaw," etc. I am 61 years old, so such language appears to me too faddish and fleeting; I will leave that usage to our creative young ones here on the Forum.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

P.S. Once again, thank you for your courtesy and kindness in your lengthy reply to my blog.

[JohnEDPMalin]

To Trevor and Iolaus:

Iolaus paid you a fine compliment Trevor.

Since I am new here, I have not formulated the level of sophistication of the various writers. Nor have I divined their gender. What makes the Internet so creative and challenging of a medium within to work!

Respectfully,


John

[Carl G]

I believe she paid that compliment to Jehu. Jehu is the one with whom she has regularly been conversing here, lo, these past 10 months. Trevor has just dropped by.

[Blair]

Any suggestions for me?

Yeah, drop the stuffy ludite act. Noone is going to be impressed, except perhaps pretentious windbag Jehu itself.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Prince:

You need to read my posting on 'Inspirational Movies.'

I am no Luddite! I understand and use technology in business, leisure and home.

After all, I am the Chairman of a technology company in Southwestern Louisiana.

It is childish to impress people; one wishes to teach and learn. How we humans grow and stay relevant in our communities.

Prince, you get more with honey than vinegar! You heard that before, I am quite sure.

Your surly, wicked personality is deliciously delightful!

Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

P.S. Your spelling could improve slightly, however!

--

[JohnEDPMalin]

Carl:

Thank you for the insight or tip.

I was wondering if Iolaus was a woman. The name is Greek for "praise Io", Io was passionately loved by Zeus, and changed into an heifer so that she might escape Hera's jealousy.

I hope my mastery of Greek mythology does not offend Prince!

I did read my Homer and Greek tragedians [all 33 extant plays] in Doric and Attic Greek in my young manhood (age 16 to 18).

Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--

[Trevor Salyzyn]

It is not meant as a unitary notion of 'everything', but rather as the source of "everything."

Everything doesn't even exist in the first place. The source can't exist either, because nothing exists whatsoever, and the source would count as something. It would be part of everything.

It would shock you Trevor that it was based on the act of masturbation.

My monocle fell off my face.

Certainly now you are existing and reading this blog. But, of course, from the viewpoint of cosmic history [12 to14 billion years], our existence is non-existence.

There's no big difference between saying "I exist" and saying nothing at all, just as there's no difference between saying "I don't exist" and saying nothing at all. I'm quite convinced these phrases are meaningless.

I do not want to burden your mind nor your patience with unnecessary lengthy words.

It's standard practise in academia. As my epistemology professor wisely cautioned, "philosophy is hard enough without using big words."

If I understand your final comment, you like highly charged word-energetics or emotive, stark language that is monosyllabic, such as "Snark," "Ugh," "Gaw," etc.

No, you did not understand the final comment. I recommended you stop obscuring your main point behind clumsy language. I was also going to comment on the trivial details you fill your posts with, but one thing at a time. At 61 years old, you still aren't old enough to be using "perchance". Wrong century. You know which words we use? Maybe. Perhaps.

I've got a translation of the Qu'ran from 50 years ago that sounds more modern than you. You just sound like Ignatius Reilly.

[JohnEDPMalin]

Trevor:

Do you exist? Are you alive? Yes or No! Or does this violate your contention of non-being?

"Nothing exists whatsoever" Do you use 'whatsoever' [=whatever] as pronoun or adjective?

Have you read Russian nihilists/anarchists who postulate meontic being [Greek, me- "not" + ont "being"]?

I will keep this blog free of trivialities.

A technical vocabulary in a learned language is standard practice in academic circles, how you weed out the fools! Your professor taught you badly.

My use of "perchance" is habit from a lifetime of reading scholarly treatises. It has no archaic or obsolete nuance in my mind.

I have been in Louisiana from 1972 to 2009. I did not enjoy the book, "The Confederacy of Dunces" or the main character Ignatius Reilly. Too jesuitical, medieval and Thomistic [St. Thomas Aquinas] for my taste! It came out when I first moved to Louisiana by his mother as you well know.

My classical Arabic edition of the Koran [Qur'an] with German commentary, 1870 edition (the last time competent scholarship has been done on the Koran) uses standard priestly poetical language. So I can't follow you there.

Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

P.S. I hope your monocle did not shatter, when it fell off your face.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Do you exist? Are you alive? Yes or No!

Mu.

Or does this violate your contention of non-being?

It tells me you define existence as life, yet tells me nothing whatsoever about existence or life.

Have you read Russian nihilists/anarchists who postulate meontic being [Greek, me- "not" + ont "being"]?

Do I have to?

A technical vocabulary in a learned language is standard practice in academic circles, how you weed out the fools! Your professor taught you badly.

My professor taught me philosophy. You seem to have some kind of personal obsession with knowing lots of languages. Best not make this obsession the universal mark of learning. It has no more to do with wisdom than tourism, computer gaming, hunting, or stamp collecting.

My use of "perchance" is habit from a lifetime of reading scholarly treatises. It has no archaic or obsolete nuance in my mind.

As I said right from the start, it isn't a bit deal. It's legible either way. I'm not going to hound you about style.

Too jesuitical, medieval and Thomistic [St. Thomas Aquinas] for my taste!

Really? I just saw it as making fun of ivory tower learning. Instead of demanding more justice, Ignatius demands more "theology and geometry". It's an inside joke for people who know the history of political philosophy.

My classical Arabic edition of the Koran [Qur'an] with German commentary, 1870 edition (the last time competent scholarship has been done on the Koran) uses standard priestly poetical language. So I can't follow you there.

No wonder you hated Confederacy of Dunces. You are precisely the sort of person that John Toole parodied. In theory, you know what intellectuals do, and imitate it somewhat. But you've got too many attachments.

[Shahrazad]

John Malin,

I hope my mastery of Greek mythology does not offend Prince!

It's ok if you offend Prince. Certainly you shouldn't get out of your way to avoid offending him. He's arguably the most offensive poster we have at GF.

[Tomas]

It is odd that I have not found our conversation tedious, dry or dull, and yet find most of philosophy to be so.

A word edgewise,

I've been following this thread since its inception.

Keep it going Jehu, Iolaus :-)

[Carl G]

I've been following this thread since its inception.

Keep it going Jehu, Iolaus :-)

I agree.

RAH, RAH.

*shakes pom-pom*

______________________
QRS = THE BEST - GO TEAM

[Tomas]

I've been following this thread since its inception.

Keep it going Jehu, Iolaus :-)

I agree.

RAH, RAH.

*shakes pom-pom*

______________________
QRS IS THE BEST - GO TEAM

Carl, you go, girl!

[Jehu]

My general impression was airy dullness in this matter. Perchance, sterile neo-Latin treatises on this topic and Sanskrit vedic texts about the Absolute have soiled my philosophical imagination.

Indeed!

You are, of course, dealing here with old metaphysical realities.

Yes, but this is no great surprise, for our entire enquiry has been to do with the metaphysical doctrine which underlies many of the ancient wisdom traditions – philosophical essentialism and its relation to absolute/objective idealism.

If you had to reduce to three cogent statements for me about the 'Absolute', what would they be? I find the concept as a pigeon hole to lodge or squeeze all of our ignorance into its vessel. Humanity has outgrown this sort of childish metaphysical thinking.

The concept of the “Absolute”, with respect to its use in this enquiry, has been fully and clearly defined.

There are but two ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (self-caused), or it is dependent upon extrinsic causes (other-caused); the former partakes of an absolute (necessary) existence, the latter, a relative (contingent) existence. The “absolute” then is that which is “real”, “independent” and “immutable”, the “relative”, that which is “not real” (apparent), “dependent” and “mutable” (transient).

Any suggestions for me?

Only that you might be better served by concentrating on what you don’t know, rather than what you do know.

[Sapius]

Jehu: There are but two ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (self-caused), or it is dependent upon extrinsic causes (other-caused); the former partakes of an absolute (necessary) existence, the latter, a relative (contingent) existence. The “absolute” then is that which is “real”, “independent” and “immutable”, the “relative”, that which is “not real” (apparent), “dependent” and “mutable” (transient).

The very initial question that I had in the very beginning of this thread, still stands, and I ask again; what justifies a self-caused "entity"? And how can such an entity have anything “intrinsic” when “it” doesn’t/can’t have an “extrinsic” to begin with? Further more, an “entity” without a cause cannot be considered an entity to begin with, if it is, then what exactly is distinguishing that? A non-entity? And even further more, there has to necessarily be some other “entity” to consider any “other” entity, AS “entity” to begin with, otherwise there would be absolutely nothing! Which I think/hope is not what you are suggesting.

Please, only if there is something more substantial than that ONE ocean story that is supposed to logically point me to realizing that the ocean, which you actually mean existence/being, is an entity that has CAUSED its "SELF", kind of En'tenta'sized (from entity), into existence/being. Because that is exactly what you seem to be proposing.

[Jehu]

The very initial question that I had in the very beginning of this thread, still stands, and I ask again; what justifies a self-caused "entity"?

It is reason that justifies the existence of the self-caused entity.

Given that there are only the two possible modes or manners in which an entity may be constituted, and given that the “other-caused” (relative) mode is fully dependent upon the antecedent existence of its causes, it follows that there is either an infinite regression of other-caused entities underlying the appearance of all things – which is logically untenable, or there is a single “self-caused entity” which is the ultimate cause.

And how can such an entity have anything “intrinsic” when “it” doesn’t/can’t have an “extrinsic” to begin with?

It is inappropriate to speak of the Absolute as beginning, for such an entity is immutable, and so is without beginning or end (eternal). Such an entity, if it exists, must necessarily have always existed; for it contains within itself all that is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is.

Further more, an “entity” without a cause cannot be considered an entity to begin with, if it is, then what exactly is distinguishing that? A non-entity?

Indeed, but the Absolute is not without a cause, it is its own cause. Further, given that the nature of the Absolute is cognizant (awareness and knowledge), it is itself both subject and object.

And even further more, there has to necessarily be some other “entity” to consider any “other” entity, AS “entity” to begin with, otherwise there would be absolutely nothing! Which I think/hope is not what you are suggesting.

Yes, this is quite right, but there is no requirement that the objective (relative) entities be real, only that the subjective (absolute) entity be real. However, when I say that relative entities do not really exist, I do not mean that they do not exist at all, but that their existence is not how it appears; for they are not truly possessed of the characteristics (properties) that the subject observer posits to them.

Please, only if there is something more substantial than that ONE ocean story that is supposed to logically point me to realizing that the ocean, which you actually mean existence/being, is an entity that has CAUSED its "SELF", kind of En'tenta'sized (from entity), into existence/being. Because that is exactly what you seem to be proposing.

Again, I am not contending that the Absolute ever brought itself into a state of “being”, for such an event would be impossible – there being no state of “non-being” from whence it might have arisen; however, it is the ground from which all relative entities arise, and to which they must all eventually return.

[Iolaus]

John,

I was wondering if Iolaus was a woman. The name is Greek for "praise Io", Io was passionately loved by Zeus, and changed into an heifer so that she might escape Hera's jealousy.

The name was chosen for what I thought a most beautiful and poignant line in literature. I was browsing around in the bookstore, and for some reason picked up some Plato, Phaedo I think, in which Socrates is to be put to death at sunset, and is comforting his friends for their sadness at his death, and engages them in arguments for life after death and why he is not afraid, which conversation began when the young lad makes a grieving remark about his enduring the sorrow, and Socrates says:

Summon me then, and I will be your Iolaus until the sun goes down. ...

which apprently referred to their own history or mythology in which there was a battle, and to prevent loss of the battle, the prince (if I recall) called upon a special friend, Iolaus, who delayed the sun's setting.

+++++++++++
I can't imgaine objecting to a somewhat more interesting vocabulary, such as perchance rather than maybe. I like mayhaps, myself. Or better yet, "might could."

But I agree that our John seems a bit pompous. John, if you're so competently versed in the Vedic literature, what do you think of the concept of an incarnation of Brahma, in which the universe is manifest for about 23 trillion years?

Oh, but how can that be true, since they also indicated we are about half way through it? After all, they were ignorant, our ancestors! Why then, bother with Sanskrit and the Vedas?

You are quite educated; better sometimes to be an 8th grade dropout like me. Big Bang in my humble layperson's opinion, is another blind alley, poorly supported and sufficiently disproven. (La Violette, Aarp)

I'm intrigued by the idea that abstract thoughts require a separate language. Sometimes religions, too, seem to do better with a slightly removed, sacred langauge, the better to convey a sense of, well, the sacred. But it really should not be necessary in philosophy and I have always found it pretentious. Medicine, for example, is full of Latin and what the hell for? Why must we discuss renal function, and not kidney function? But isn't the real reason for it that Latin was once, (and Greek) like modern English, the universal language so that educated people around the world could communicate, and medicine has held onto those words for centuries, from the time when that language was Latin?

+++++++++++++++++++++

Why Tomas,

I had no idea! But, I am afraid, that our conversation has reached a T intersection, for I do not see that we will agree further at this point on the matter of the reality of the manifest universe, although it seems Jehu has said something I agree with wholeheartedly here:

However, when I say that relative entities do not really exist, I do not mean that they do not exist at all, but that their existence is not how it appears; for they are not truly possessed of the characteristics (properties) that the subject observer posits to them.

So Jehu,

Where do we go next?