The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

If you were going off on vacation or something, you should have said so!

[mansman]

How does this relate to putting a few items in a shoe box and putting it in an attic for 100 years, forgotten?

I’m sorry, I do not understand the question?

I am trying to understand in what way things are not real, or lack substance,

It is really quite straight forward, that which is dependent upon its own intrinsic causes is ‘real’, while that which dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence is ‘not real’; nevertheless, both sorts of things ‘exist’.

Jehu, so what? How this important? What you write is same as saying "I call that which is dependent upon its own intrinsic causes the word "real", and I choose the word "unreal" for that which depends on extrinsic causes to exist".
But real and unreal or not real are nothing but LABELS. Choose what ever lable you like, maybe your wife will choose different labels. I can chose lables too, here are mine:
"real this way", and, "real that way". So what?
If you say- relative is not real, absolute is real, someone else may choose different lables from you, so what? How you help us to teach us this?

If my lawn tractor chop off my kids toes should I say "Giro, no need to fuss your toes wernt real anyway!"
Is that the idea?

Maybe you should explain what mean you by "real"? How can you say something is more or less real than something else, sound crazy because EVERYTHING is real even if they are different kind of reality, such as Giro and picture of Giro. All are real, and nothing is TOTALLY unreal.
You say absolute is more real than relative things, maybe, maybe not, maybe sciientists will show one day. But common sense tell us both have identical reality though magnitude may be different.

WHo agree with me here? be honest.

[Jehu]

Iolaus,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was called away suddenly, and could not access the internet. In any event, I took the opportunity to thoroughly review all that we have said to one another thus far, so that I might determine the best way for us to proceed. Even so, you may find that I am repetitive at times, and I hope that you will please bear with me, for it is vitally important that we understand precisely those concepts which are in question.

Let us now delve into the question of how ‘relative entities’ (phenomena) come to appear, that is to say, what are their fundamental elements and how are they interrelated. By ‘fundamental elements’, I do not mean those other ‘things’ of which the particular thing is comprised (its constitutive causes), but rather, that set of elements that are fundamental to ‘all’ things – regardless of their class. Once these fundamental elements are thoroughly understood, we may then employ them as an analytical tool to aid us in understanding the nature of any particular thing.

However, it must be understood that although we will assign each of these fundamental elements its own name - so that we may speak of them individually, these names are not what the elements are (their constitutive causes), they are merely what we have chosen to call them; for the elements of which we now speak are not themselves things, and so cannot rightfully be named. It was the tradition among ancient Eastern essentialists to assign each element a name that best characterized the element itself, but the uninitiated often took these surrogate names to be the elements themselves, and so they took ‘water’ to be water, and ‘air’ to be air, and ‘earth’ to be merely earth, etc.; but this is not the case. Further, although we will speak of these elements as thought they partake of an independent existence, they do not, and nothing can manifest without that all of the fundamental elements are simultaneously present.

Does this make sense?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was called away suddenly, and could not access the internet.

I figured something was up.

Even so, you may find that I am repetitive at times, and I hope that you will please bear with me, for it is vitally important that we understand precisely those concepts which are in question.

Yes, it's important, a little repetition won't hurt anything.

However, it must be understood that although we will assign each of these fundamental elements its own name - so that we may speak of them individually, these names are not what the elements are (their constitutive causes), they are merely what we have chosen to call them; for the elements of which we now speak are not themselves things, and so cannot rightfully be named. It was the tradition among ancient Eastern essentialists to assign each element a name that best characterized the element itself, but the uninitiated often took these surrogate names to be the elements themselves, and so they took ‘water’ to be water, and ‘air’ to be air, and ‘earth’ to be merely earth, etc.; but this is not the case. Further, although we will speak of these elements as thought they partake of an independent existence, they do not, and nothing can manifest without that all of the fundamental elements are simultaneously present.

Does this make sense?

Yes, pretty much.
All which fundamental elements? The five?

[Jehu]

All which fundamental elements? The five?

Actually, there are ten fundamental elements, however, we will begin with those five which constitute the manifestation (appearance) of a thing – whatever that thing might be.

Let us begin with that element with which we are already most familiar – ‘essence’ (Gk matter) or substance, to which the ancient essentialist ascribed the symbol ‘water’.

Everything has an ‘essence’: a unique set of characteristics which are essential to that thing’s being what it is; that is to say, a ‘bicycle’, for example. The ‘essential characteristics’ (elements) of a bicycle would include: two wheels, a frame, pedals, handle bars, a seat, a gear assemble, a chain, etc. Now, each of these ‘elements’ is itself a thing, for all things (relative entities) arise as a result of the coming together of two sorts of extrinsic causes; one set of which (its constitutive causes) are other things. Accordingly, a bicycle wheel must also have an essence, the elements of which are: a tire, tube, rim, spokes, hub, etc. However, if one continues to analyse the bicycle into smaller and smaller parts, one will eventually arrive at something that cannot be further divided (e.g., a quark) – not because it is truly indivisible, but because we have reach the limits of our ability to perceive or imagine smaller components. The term ‘essence’ then, at least in so far as we are employing it here, denotes the ‘largest’ set of discernable components into which a given thing can be divided.

The elements of a thing must be of the same class as the given thing itself. For example, since a bicycle is a physical thing, its elements must also be physical things. The elements of an idea, on the other hand, will be other ideas; a sensation, other sensations; a capacity, other capacities; and an activity, other activities. Further, the elements of a thing must necessarily be simpler than is the thing itself; that is to say, a wheel is simpler than a bicycle, and a spoke is simpler than a wheel; and so as we disassemble a given thing, we move inevitably towards simplicity.

Now, why did the ancients assign this element the designation, ‘water’? The reason is that essence, like water (a liquid), has no inherent form, as so will take on whatever form is imposed upon it by its container. In other words, it is the fact that things seem to partake of an independent or separate existence that enables them to be assembled in a variety of different ways, and thereby give rise to the appearance of different things. If, on the other hand, essence did not have this liquid quality or malleability, then every essence would have its own set form, and no sort of change in that form would be possible.

[Jehu]

Maybe you should explain what mean you by "real"? How can you say something is more or less real than something else, sound crazy because EVERYTHING is real even if they are different kind of reality, such as Giro and picture of Giro. All are real, and nothing is TOTALLY unreal.

I have already explained what I mean by the term ‘real’: that which has an absolute and not merely contingent existence. The question is what do you mean by the term, and I think you will find that by ‘real’, you mean ‘actual’, as apposed to ‘imaginary’. However, as there are only two possible ways in which a thing may be constituted (absolute and relative), and given that the actual and the imaginary are both constituted in the same way (relative), I think that you are using the term ‘real’ incorrectly.

[Iolaus]

OK

[HYPNOSIS]

Just as when there is everywhere nothing but water, we cannot say that there is a multitude of separate bodies of water, but a singular and continuous body of water; just so when there is everywhere only being, we cannot say that there is a multiplicity of separate beings, but a singular and continuous being. It follows then that in whatever manner one sort of thing differs from another, it in not in its 'existential being' (existence), which is in everything the same both in its quality and its quantity. Therefore, being is the one “universal predicate”, and as such, cannot be used to differentiate one thing from another.

A listener can be at two places at once. E=MC squared...or rather Death for that matter.

[Jehu]

OK

Everything must have a ‘form’: a distinct and identifiable mode or pattern of distribution which abides within the essence of the thing; that is to say, between its elements. This form is not itself a ‘constituent’(constitutive cause) of the thing, but a relationship or series of relationships which hold between the constituents; and which bind them together as an apparent entity; and it is for this reason that such entities are said to have only a ‘relative’ existence. Therefore, if we can consider the essence of a thing to be its ‘content’, the form of a thing is its ‘container’.

The ancient essentialists were at odds as to how to symbolize this particular element; the Greeks called it ‘aether’, the Tibetans called it ‘space’, and the Chinese called it ‘metal’ - because of the spatial quality of a highly polished piece of metal. I prefer the term ‘space’ for it best conveys the ‘three-dimensional’ quality of this element. In any event, a form is the non-substantive or ethereal aspect of a thing, and is that aspect with which we associate a name or designation. The name ‘elephant’, for example, may be applied to any statue, painting or photograph which bears the appropriate form, as well as to the animal itself. In other words, the form ‘elephant’ may abide in a wide range of different essences, and still be recognizable as such.

Now, a form cannot exist without that it abides within some sort of essence, and an essence cannot exist without that it possesses some sort of form – even though that form may be indeterminate; that is to say, a glob, a streak, a smear, a haze, etc. Consequently, a form and its essence are related through the ‘principle of interdependent complementarity’; interdependent because neither can exist on its own, and complementary because the two aspects complete one another in the appearance of the thing itself.

Unlike the essence of a thing, which must be of the same class as the thing itself, the form of a thing is always of the class ‘mentation’, for recognition is a mental act. However, it should be noted that all essences may ultimately be reduced to the class ‘sensations’, for whatever the apparent origin and cause of a things being perceived, we can only know the thing through the mediation of our sense faculties; and the sensations that arise out of them (i.e., visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile sensations).

Form (space/mentation)
Essence (water/sensations)

[Iolaus]

OK

[Jehu]

OK

Here, we will consider what is perhaps the most difficult of the five elements to understand – the element of ‘embodiment’.

Just as Being can be intellectually divided into two interdependent and complementary aspects: that which is ‘real’ (the one absolute entity) and that which is merely ‘apparent’ (a multitude of relative entities), so too can the apparent (relative) be divided into two interdependent and complementary aspects: that which is ‘actual’ (the one objective universe) and that which is only ‘imaginary’ (a multitude of subjective universes). As I said earlier, the absolute operates upon perfect knowledge, and it is the indefinite and continuous evolution of this perfect knowledge in which all relative beings participate, and which all we sentient beings perceive to be an objective and external universe. For this reason, we may say that there are two modes of perception: that which is given to the mind immediately by the senses, and that which is given to the mind through the mediation of that interpretive mental faculty we call ‘imagination’.

With respect to those things that are perceived immediately through the senses, it follows that in order that they may be so perceived, they must be in some way ‘embodied’ within the objective universe; else they would not give rise to the sensations which constitute the essential aspect of their manifestation. That is to say, of the five classes of thing: ,mentation, sensations, objects (actual and imaginary), properties and activities, all must have an objective embodiment, if they are to be perceived through the senses. An emotion, for example, can only be perceived by another cognizant agent, if it is embodied in some sort of overt bodily indicator such as laughter, sobbing, etc. Or take the case of an idea, which may only be perceived when embodied in language, drawings, models, or some other sort of perceptible indicator. The same holds true of activities, for there can be no motion without that there is a perceptible mover, or no change without that there is something perceptible that changes.

With respect to those things that are perceived through the imagination, they too require an embodiment, but there embodiment lies not in the perfect knowledge that constitutes the objective universe, but in the imperfect knowledge that constitutes our own subjective world. For example, that entity which we hold to be our self is embodied in our personal precepts: our moral and ethical codes of behaviour.

The ancient essentialists all denoted the element of embodiment by the symbol ‘earth’, for reasons that I am sure are self-evident.

Form (space)
Essence (water)
Embodiment (earth)

[Iolaus]

I guess I am a little weak on calling the form of a thing "space". Space itself, a container, makes form possible of course.

[Jehu]

I guess I am a little weak on calling the form of a thing "space". Space itself, a container, makes form possible of course.

I understand completely, and would be very surprised if this concept did not cause you some consternation. Nevertheless, space is precisely what form is, and ultimately, essence as well. However, though space is ‘not a thing’(nothing), it is not nonexistent, but rather, is absolute, independent and immutable. What’s more, far from being passive, space is the one ‘operative cause’ of all things.

I will introduce the last two element together, for there is little that can be said of the one without reference to the other. Everything must have a ‘function’: an appropriate mode of activity whereby it fulfils its intended purpose. Then, given that nothing can function without that it has the ability to do so, everything must also have a ‘potency’: a latent capacity to perform its function. Take our bicycle, for example, the function of the frame is to hold the other essential components together in their appropriate relationships, and in order to do so, the frame must have certain properties (potencies). Clearly, a paper frame would not hold the other components together for very long, nor would a rubber spokes allow the wheels to function properly.

The ancients signified the element of ‘potency’ as ‘fire’, and the element of ‘function’ as ‘wind’, ‘air’ or ‘wood’, depending upon the tradition. Fire signifies an energy: a latent ability to perform work, which is generally thought to abide within the thing itself, as its property; and so the element of ‘potency’ corresponds to the class of things we call ‘properties’. The various symbols which signify the element of ‘function’ are all indicative of movement. The oldest of the three symbols is probably ‘wood’ for this symbol corresponds to its primary colour – green; however, it was not the woods themselves that they Chinese essentialists were pointing to, but their motion as the invisible wind moved trough them. Later Tibetan essentialist chose to use the wind as their symbol, and the Greeks simply called it air.

Form (space/mentation/white)
Essence (water/sensations/blue)
Embodiment (earth/objects/yellow)
Potency (fire/properties/red)
Function (wind/activities/green)

[Iolaus]

However, though space is ‘not a thing’(nothing), it is not nonexistent, but rather, is absolute, independent and immutable. What’s more, far from being passive, space is the one ‘operative cause’ of all things.

Well !!!

Of course, I do not think space is empty. I think it is full, it is the ether, and quite probably, the mind of God.

I need to cut and paste your past few posts, the gist of them, and reread it to familiarize with it better. They make good sense when I read them, but it slips away...

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I am going away for a week. I may have some internet time. I will look for your next installment.

[Jehu]

Jehu,

I am going away for a week. I may have some internet time. I will look for your next installment.

While all five of the elements partake of a ‘relative’ existence, form and essence are ‘actual’, while embodiment, potency and function are only ‘imaginary’. That is to say, form and essence are given to the mind immediately by the senses, and constitute the two interdependent and complementary aspects of every phenomenal experience, while the three remaining elements arise as a result of the mediation of our own interpretive mental processes. By this, I mean that first we posit the existence of an ‘entity’ (separate or distinct existent), which we take to be the origin and cause of our phenomenal experience, and then we attribute to that entity the appropriate properties (potency) and activities (function).

The reason that we tend to make this error has to do with stability (immutability), which is the fundamental property of the absolute entity – the one true entity. To see how this works, we must look to the five elements as they appear in the modern physical sciences- these being: space, time, matter, energy and motion. And specifically, at that element called 'matter'.

The fundamental quality of the relative mode of being is ‘instability’ (mutability), that is to say, the total lack of ‘stability’ (immutability); for given their complementarity, the two modes of being are mutually exclusive. Therefore, in the relative world, everything abides is a state of perpetual flux, and nothing remains unchanged for more than a single instance. Although the absolute is cognizant (aware) of this instability, it cannot recognize (know) it, for it is constantly becoming something else. What the absolute can recognize are those elements of apparent stability which have ‘in-formed’ themselves in this sensuous flux. This embedded ‘information’ represents islands of stability in a sea of fluid-like sensations.

This is evidence by an analysis of the modern concept of ‘matter’, which is held to be the fundamental entity upon which all other entities are dependent. Matter is defined as that which has ‘mass’ and ‘extension’ – mass being equivalent to what we have called ‘essence’, and extension being equivalent to what we have called ‘form’. Mass, then is defined as a measure of inertia: the ability of a thing to resist any external influence which might alter its state of motion. Mass then is simply a measure of a thing’s stability. However, the question is this: if all essences abide in a perpetual state of change, what is it that appears to remain the same; and the answer is ‘form’.

[mansman]

Iolaus wrote:
I am trying to understand in what way things are not real, or lack substance?

Jehu wrote:
It is really quite straight forward, that which is dependent upon its own intrinsic causes is ‘real’, while that which dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence is ‘not real’; nevertheless, both sorts of things ‘exist’.

M: Do you understand now, Iolaus? That which he calls REAL is that which he DEFINES to be real. Simple as that.
Some one else may define the same thing (Absolute) to be "LAER", in which case a dog will be consider notlaer.

Up to each individual to call things whatever you want!

I think it hilarious to begin by defining from start what is and isnt "real" and then you follow along with J's tedious proceedings just to conclude same thing! haha

And if you ask him purpose of exercise he , of course, ignore you.
Always he ignore tough questions, probably he is fake genius.
M

[Jehu]

Iolaus wrote:
I am trying to understand in what way things are not real, or lack substance?

Jehu wrote:
It is really quite straight forward, that which is dependent upon its own intrinsic causes is ‘real’, while that which dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence is ‘not real’; nevertheless, both sorts of things ‘exist’.

M: Do you understand now, Iolaus? That which he calls REAL is that which he DEFINES to be real. Simple as that.
Some one else may define the same thing (Absolute) to be "LAER", in which case a dog will be consider notlaer.

Far from my having personally fabricated these definitions, I think you will find that these technical terms have a long tradition of acceptance within the philosophical community - where their meanings are precisely defined.

From the current Oxford English Dictionary:

“real: … Philos - having an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence.”

“absolute: … Philos – that which can exist without being related to anything else.”

[Iolaus]

I'm back but I have to reread your post and it is late.

[brokenhead]

However, though space is ‘not a thing’(nothing), it is not nonexistent, but rather, is absolute, independent and immutable. What’s more, far from being passive, space is the one ‘operative cause’ of all things.

Well !!!

Of course, I do not think space is empty. I think it is full, it is the ether, and quite probably, the mind of God.

I need to cut and paste your past few posts, the gist of them, and reread it to familiarize with it better. They make good sense when I read them, but it slips away...

Space is now known not to be empty. One theoretical formulation is that it contains a Higgs field that exerts a "drag" on all particles. This drag is thought by proponents of the HIggs theory to impart mass to particles whcih move through it.

This is not the same as the ether that used to be speculated, as it is not the medium in which EM fields "wave," meanning simply that as an EM field propagates through it, the Higgs field remains unaffected. By contrast, air is the medium through which sound waves propagate. As they do, air is affected - it is locally compressed and expanded as a soundwave passes a given small volume.

[Iolaus]

Jehu

By this, I mean that first we posit the existence of an ‘entity’ (separate or distinct existent), which we take to be the origin and cause of our phenomenal experience, and then we attribute to that entity the appropriate properties (potency) and activities (function).

The reason that we tend to make this error has to do with stability (immutability), which is the fundamental property of the absolute entity

I'm afraid I am a little bit lost and not sure how to articulate a question. What error, exactly?

Brokenhead,

Space is now known not to be empty. One theoretical formulation is that it contains a Higgs field that exerts a "drag" on all particles. This drag is thought by proponents of the HIggs theory to impart mass to particles whcih move through it.

This is not the same as the ether that used to be speculated, as it is not the medium in which EM fields "wave," meanning simply that as an EM field propagates through it, the Higgs field remains unaffected. By contrast, air is the medium through which sound waves propagate. As they do, air is affected - it is locally compressed and expanded as a soundwave passes a given small volume.

I should read up on the Higgs field, but the ether I have in mind is probably the same as the ancients believed, yet in more recent times, with the Michelson-Morley experiment they were expecting an ether quite different than the one which I have intuited. And by different, I mean more crude, something they could measure with the tools of that day, and which if it could be, would not have the properties it should have.
I agree that the field is unaffected by EM waves.

[Jehu]

I'm afraid I am a little bit lost and not sure how to articulate a question. What error, exactly?

The error lies in our imagining that there is an independent and external entity which is the origin and cause of our phenomenal experience.

You see, the notion of an external entity arises as a result of our own interpretive mental processes, and is based upon the appearance of stability in the sensory field. That is to say, although the essence of every ‘thing’ abides in a state of perpetual flux, the binding together of this essence into a stable form, gives the appearance of an entity (absolute being), where no true entity exists.

[Iolaus]

The error lies in our imagining that there is an independent and external entity which is the origin and cause of our phenomenal experience.

Ok, that is what I thought. But, is it really true that when I think I see a bicycle, I am supposing that the bicycle is an independent entity? I mean, when you point out the flux of things, and the way that they don't really exist but as a coming together of temporary parts, it does make the point, but then on the other hand, if we had really thought about it (and of course we barely had) wouldn't we really always agree, and don't we basically subconsciously know, that things are all in a flux, ephemeral, dependent upon prior causes?

The reason that we tend to make this error has to do with stability (immutability), which is the fundamental property of the absolute entity – the one true entity.

You mean, that because our awareness intuits its own immutability, that we then suppose that objects of perception are also immutable?

[Jehu]

Ok, that is what I thought. But, is it really true that when I think I see a bicycle, I am supposing that the bicycle is an independent entity? I mean, when you point out the flux of things, and the way that they don't really exist but as a coming together of temporary parts, it does make the point, but then on the other hand, if we had really thought about it (and of course we barely had) wouldn't we really always agree, and don't we basically subconsciously know, that things are all in a flux, ephemeral, dependent upon prior causes?

Absolutely, this is why, in the Buddhist tradition, this erroneous metaphysical view is called “ignorance”, for ignorance implies an element of internationality.

You mean, that because our awareness intuits its own immutability, that we then suppose that objects of perception are also immutable?

Yes, this is precisely it: stability (immutability) is a fundamental characteristic of the absolute entity, and is that quality whereby it informs essence.

However, in order to fully understand how this manifestation process operates, we must first overcome our preconceptions as to how things are created; that is to say, the belief that things are constructed from the bottom up (reductionism). Now, I am not saying that things do not appear to be constructed in this way, for they most certainly do; rather, I am saying that if things partake of only a relative existence, and so are not real, then it follows that they cannot be the real causes of any other thing. Wherein then lies the true cause of the thing? This is the question we must ask ourselves.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Absolutely, this is why, in the Buddhist tradition, this erroneous metaphysical view is called “ignorance”, for ignorance implies an element of internationality.

Did you perhaps mean intentionality?

Yes, this is precisely it: stability (immutability) is a fundamental characteristic of the absolute entity, and is that quality whereby it informs essence.

How does it inform essence? I'm not entirely sure of essence. I went back and read your post of July 31,

The term ‘essence’ then, at least in so far as we are employing it here, denotes the ‘largest’ set of discernable components into which a given thing can be divided.

and I'm not quite sure what you mean here by the largest set.

that is to say, the belief that things are constructed from the bottom up (reductionism).

Well I think they are, regardless of whether those smaller components are not their final or true cause.

Wherein then lies the true cause of the thing? This is the question we must ask ourselves.

OK.