The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

How does it inform essence? I'm not entirely sure of essence. I went back and read your post of July 31, and I'm not quite sure what you mean here by the largest set.

Yes, I understand, this is a subtle concept, and difficult to grasp.

The essence of a ‘bicycle’ consists in such things as its: wheels, frame, peddles, handlebars, gears, etc. Then, the essence of a ‘bicycle wheel’ consists in its: hub, rim, spokes, tire, tube, bearings, etc. However, when it comes to the essence of a ‘bicycle spoke’, for example, where we can discern no additional parts (elements), we tend to call it by the name of whatever material it is made from (e.g., stainless steel). But, with the aid of technology, we can discern further components such as molecules, and these may be reduced to iron and carbon atoms, and these into electrons, protons and neutrons, etc, etc, until we reach the limit of our ability to either perceive or imagine anything more fundamental.

Now, the first set of elements (wheels, frame, etc.) are essential to that class of things we call a ‘bicycle’, while the second set of elements (hub, rim, etc.) are essential to that class of things we call a ‘bicycle wheel’, and although the bicycle wheel is an element of the bicycle, it is a thing; and so has an essence of its own; and the same is true of those things which constitute its essence, etc, etc. In other words, any form, such as our bicycle, comprises other subsidiary forms (wheels, frame, etc.), and these, still other subsidiary forms; and it is in this way that essence is informed; and it is this information (knowledge) that the mind recognizes.

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

Not really! Consider the things that appear to us in a dream state; are these things constructed from the bottom up? Or are they constructed from the top down?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I think I understand essence better now, although I had tended to think of essence as something simple and almost singular. Essence of water makes more sense than essence of a bicycle. But OK.

Not really! Consider the things that appear to us in a dream state; are these things constructed from the bottom up? Or are they constructed from the top down?

But I need to explain something. What people think of as top down and bottom up are the same for me. Because for me, there is no top down. Top down is what we do, but it is not what God does - my opinion here, although an informed opinion.

For me the innermost and smallest place is the true top, and is the place from where material things are constructed, and is the place of the mind of God and the energy of God. I've discarded the idea of a God on high who points his finger and creates. The point of control and creativity and movement is deep within. In fact, I even came up with a phrase for it, "the inner heights."

[Jehu]

I think I understand essence better now, although I had tended to think of essence as something simple and almost singular. Essence of water makes more sense than essence of a bicycle. But OK.

Consider this statement by Socrates from Plato’s “Theaetetus”: “But none of these primeval elements can be defined; they can only be named, for they have nothing but a name, and the things which are compounded of them, as they are complex, are expressed by a combination of names, for the combination of names is the essence of a definition.” Consequently, a ‘definition’ may be then be defined as: “an expression of the essence of a thing.” This is the proper meaning of the term, ‘essence’, at least from the view of the ancient essentialists.

But I need to explain something. What people think of as top down and bottom up are the same for me. Because for me, there is no top down. Top down is what we do, but it is not what God does - my opinion here, although an informed opinion.

For me the innermost and smallest place is the true top, and is the place from where material things are constructed, and is the place of the mind of God and the energy of God. I've discarded the idea of a God on high who points his finger and creates. The point of control and creativity and movement is deep within. In fact, I even came up with a phrase for it, "the inner heights."

Yes, I see what you are saying, however, I must object to the use of terms such as “innermost” and “deep within”, for as I have said, all things, being relative entities, do not have an inside; for there is no true entity there, there is only the appearance of such. Just as the causes of a shadow do not abide within the shadow itself, neither do the causes of the phenomenal experience abide within the things (relative entities) that we mistakenly posit to be their origin and cause.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

OK, but how would you describe the essence of a bicycle, and the essence of America?

Yes, I see what you are saying, however, I must object to the use of terms such as “innermost” and “deep within”, for as I have said, all things, being relative entities, do not have an inside; for there is no true entity there, there is only the appearance of such. Just as the causes of a shadow do not abide within the shadow itself, neither do the causes of the phenomenal experience abide within the things (relative entities) that we mistakenly posit to be their origin and cause.

I'm just not quite sure what to do with this. Say a body. Composed of cells. Cells composed of molecules. Molecules composed of atoms. Atoms of smaller elements, and those smaller elements, almost surely, taking their energy from a superfine field as yet undiscovered.
I can't see a way to dispense with this, nor am I even sure in what way you disagree. You posit an intelligence whose perfect knowledge manifests matter. Is that more or less correct? Well, what is the energy source for this matter? From whence does it arise? It is all well and good to say that it is a thought of the Absolute, I don't dispute that, but nonetheless we have the question: But how does it work? And how it works is, that small things compose bigger things.

I can't tell if the shadow analogy is fitting. At any rate, you are implying that the cause of a rock, is not inside of the rock, but elsewhere. I don't dispute that, but where is this elsewhere? Up on high? Outside of the universe? Beyond the sun?

So just the other day I am reading that if the nucleus of an atom were blown up to 4 inches, the electron cloud would spin at 4 miles out. What's going on with all this 'empty' space?

I'm not even sure we disagree in any important way. We might just be having a different spatial picture in our minds.

If the true cause of things is consciousness, how does that negate that this consciousness is within? Actually, it is everywhere. The within is everywhere.

So even though the true cause of the rock is not found within the rock, does not then mean that the rock is not indeed made up of molecules, and those molecules of atoms.

[Jehu]

OK, but how would you describe the essence of a bicycle, and the essence of America?

As I said in my last post, a definition is an expression of the essence of a thing, and definitions may be found in a dictionary, lexicon, or encyclopaedia.

I'm just not quite sure what to do with this. Say a body. Composed of cells. Cells composed of molecules. Molecules composed of atoms. Atoms of smaller elements, and those smaller elements, almost surely, taking their energy from a superfine field as yet undiscovered.
I can't see a way to dispense with this, nor am I even sure in what way you disagree. You posit an intelligence whose perfect knowledge manifests matter. Is that more or less correct? Well, what is the energy source for this matter? From whence does it arise? It is all well and good to say that it is a thought of the Absolute, I don't dispute that, but nonetheless we have the question: But how does it work? And how it works is, that small things compose bigger things.

To answer your question, let us apply the five elements to the physical universe, where they manifest as : space (form/aether), time (essence/water), matter (embodiment/earth), energy (potency/fire) and motion (function/wind). Now, as Socrates stated, “…none of these primeval elements can be defined; they can only be named, for they have nothing but a name,…”. By this he meant that as the five elements are the fundamental elements of all things, they are not things in themselves, and so cannot be defined: that is to say, they cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. And as I said earlier, space, essence, embodiment, etc., are not what the elements are, but merely what they are called (named). So you see, the concept we call ‘energy’ has only an imaginary existence; and there is nothing real to be found in anything, no matter how subtle.

Let me ask you this: if in your dream, you have a car, and this car comprises all of the essential components, does it follow that the dream car is made up of these components. By this, I mean must the dreaming mind, before it can imagine a car, first imagine its chassis, wheels, drive train, etc.? Or, does it imagine the car first, and the components only after the dream persona discriminates them. Again, before the dream persona enters into a dream room, must the mind have already imagined what is in that room, or does it do so only when it becomes necessary?

You see, the erroneous (apparent) view is that the universe is made up of a multitude of simple entities which amalgamate in varies combinations to create more complex entities; however, in reality, there is but one entity, and this one entity creates the universe by dividing itself into less and less complex entities. However, I do not mean that it really divides itself, for this is not possible, but that it thinks itself to be divided; for thinking and being are the same.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

To answer your question, let us apply the five elements to the physical universe, where they manifest as : space (form/aether), time (essence/water), matter (embodiment/earth), energy (potency/fire) and motion (function/wind). Now, as Socrates stated, “…none of these primeval elements can be defined; they can only be named, for they have nothing but a name,…”. By this he meant that as the five elements are the fundamental elements of all things, they are not things in themselves, and so cannot be defined: that is to say, they cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. And as I said earlier, space, essence, embodiment, etc., are not what the elements are, but merely what they are called (named). So you see, the concept we call ‘energy’ has only an imaginary existence; and there is nothing real to be found in anything, no matter how subtle.

I am not sure how we arrive at the idea that nothing is real from this: These five elements are fundamental descriptions, but are not themselves anything.
Oh, perhaps it is because you have included energy as one of the five mental descriptions. I guess that is where I differ. I would say that energy is real. So far as I know, energy is all that exists, there isn't anything else. Not that I understand what it is and whence it arises. There could be something more fundamental, such as consciousness or awareness. But I think of that as also an energy.

Let me ask you this: if in your dream, you have a car, and this car comprises all of the essential components, does it follow that the dream car is made up of these components. By this, I mean must the dreaming mind, before it can imagine a car, first imagine its chassis, wheels, drive train, etc.? Or, does it imagine the car first, and the components only after the dream persona discriminates them. Again, before the dream persona enters into a dream room, must the mind have already imagined what is in that room, or does it do so only when it becomes necessary?

A good question, a good point. I have long been fond of the dream analogy for reality, and for consciousness. But this paragraph makes me rethink it. Perhaps it is not so good an analogy after all. For in the dream, as you say, it is quite unnecessary to actually have a real car. Dreams are like cartoons. Did you ever see the cartoon versus reality movies, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? In these 'toon' worlds, things are a lot like dreams. That's why no one dies when they fall and go splat or get steamrolled.

But you had also agreed with me earlier that while my dreams lack power, the dream of the Absolute (this universe) arises from perfect knowledge and is able to manifest this stability.

Are you saying that before we invented microscopes, there were no bacteria or molecules, because we had no need to imagine them? That complex and highly consistent findings of science are really only appearing as we poke into things, and not before?

You see, the erroneous (apparent) view is that the universe is made up of a multitude of simple entities which amalgamate in varies combinations to create more complex entities; however, in reality, there is but one entity, and this one entity creates the universe by dividing itself into less and less complex entities. However, I do not mean that it really divides itself, for this is not possible, but that it thinks itself to be divided; for thinking and being are the same.

I know that there is only one entity, and one substance.

However, I do not see why that substance isn't real.

It is interesting that you say less and less complex entities, whereas I would have said, divides itself into more and more complex entities. The complexity is the illusion.

[Jehu]

I am not sure how we arrive at the idea that nothing is real from this: These five elements are fundamental descriptions, but are not themselves anything.
Oh, perhaps it is because you have included energy as one of the five mental descriptions. I guess that is where I differ. I would say that energy is real. So far as I know, energy is all that exists, there isn't anything else. Not that I understand what it is and whence it arises. There could be something more fundamental, such as consciousness or awareness. But I think of that as also an energy.

We arrived at the conclusion that nothing is real for the reason that any given thing is dependent upon at least two other (extrinsic) things for its existence, and that apart from the relationship between these other things, the given thing has no existence; and so it follows that all things partake of only a ‘relative existence’, and so are not real (i.e., absolute).

With respect to the Five Elements, it was said that these were the five fundamental aspects of all things, and so it follows that they cannot themselves be things, but must be more fundamental. Let me explain: the elements of a bicycle are: two wheels, a frame, handle bars, peddles, etc., and these are the other (extrinsic) things which constitute it – its constitutive causes. However, the five fundamental elements of a bicycle (or any other thing) are form, essence, embodiment, potency and function; and these are not extrinsic (other) things, but intrinsic qualities or characteristics.

Nevertheless, the five elements are not real either, for each of them changes from one thing to another. If energy (potency/fire) was real, it would be absolute, independent and immutable; and so it could continue to exist even if the other four elements were not present. However, even in the realm of physics, it is understood that energy is merely a latent capacity to perform some function (do work); a ‘functional capacity”, and so if there were no such thing as motion (function), there would be no such thing as energy (potency). Consider Einstein’s famous formula (E=MC2), which states the relationship between E = energy (potency) and the other four element of physics: M = mass (embodiment) and C2 = the speed of light squared - which entails motion (function), distance (form) and time (essence). So you see, energy may be reduced to the other four elements, and so it cannot be real (absolute)

A good question, a good point. I have long been fond of the dream analogy for reality, and for consciousness. But this paragraph makes me rethink it. Perhaps it is not so good an analogy after all. For in the dream, as you say, it is quite unnecessary to actually have a real car. Dreams are like cartoons. Did you ever see the cartoon versus reality movies, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? In these 'toon' worlds, things are a lot like dreams. That's why no one dies when they fall and go splat or get steamrolled.

But you had also agreed with me earlier that while my dreams lack power, the dream of the Absolute (this universe) arises from perfect knowledge and is able to manifest this stability.

Are you saying that before we invented microscopes, there were no bacteria or molecules, because we had no need to imagine them? That complex and highly consistent findings of science are really only appearing as we poke into things, and not before?

I am not certain on this point, for someone may have imagined the existence of molecules or bacteria before they were perceived through a microscope, in which case we would have to admit that they did exist – at least in the imagination. However, if you are asking me if they actually existed prior to any sentient being’s having perceived or imagined them, then the answer is no; although they must have existed in potentiality, else thy could no have been actualized. What I mean by this is that the existence of such a thing must have been in accordance with the law of identity, else the absolute could not have manifested it. For example, a unicorn partakes of only an imaginary existence, however, there is no reason why such a thing could not exist in actuality, for there is nothing about a unicorn that precludes it from actually existing. On the other hand, I can imagine scarecrow that can sing and dance, or even fight off wicked witches, but such a thing cannot exist in actuality, for it would violate the law of identity, which is the universal law of causation.

I know that there is only one entity, and one substance.

However, I do not see why that substance isn't real.

It is interesting that you say less and less complex entities, whereas I would have said, divides itself into more and more complex entities. The complexity is the illusion.

Substance cannot be real, for if it were real, then it would be immutable, and so incapable of change; and nothing could be fashioned from it.

A thing is always more complex that its parts, and so the further we reduce a thing, the less complex its parts become. Ultimately, we can reduce a thing no further, only once we reach that point where we can differentiate no further components – that is to say, when we can neither perceive nor imagine anything less complex. The concept of ‘matter’ is just such a thing, for it cannot be reduced to any simpler; but only to a quality (mass) and a relation (extension); and every entity must comprise both a quality and a relation.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

We arrived at the conclusion that nothing is real for the reason that any given thing is dependent upon at least two other (extrinsic) things for its existence,

Oh, yes, my bad. I had forgotten that definition and simply went with my instinct that if something isn't real, it doesn't exist.

Nevertheless, the five elements are not real either, for each of them changes from one thing to another. If energy (potency/fire) was real, it would be absolute, independent and immutable; and so it could continue to exist even if the other four elements were not present. However, even in the realm of physics, it is understood that energy is merely a latent capacity to perform some function (do work); a ‘functional capacity”, and so if there were no such thing as motion (function), there would be no such thing as energy (potency). Consider Einstein’s famous formula (E=MC2), which states the relationship between E = energy (potency) and the other four element of physics: M = mass (embodiment) and C2 = the speed of light squared - which entails motion (function), distance (form) and time (essence). So you see, energy may be reduced to the other four elements, and so it cannot be real (absolute)

I would say that the four elements are reducible to energy...

I am not certain on this point, for someone may have imagined the existence of molecules or bacteria before they were perceived through a microscope, in which case we would have to admit that they did exist – at least in the imagination. However, if you are asking me if they actually existed prior to any sentient being’s having perceived or imagined them, then the answer is no; although they must have existed in potentiality, else thy could no have been actualized.

If the absolute manifested it, then it was perceived by a sentient being, no?

But let me ask again, do you believe that a rock could exist without its molecules and atoms before beings other than the absolute had examined it? And do you believe that there could be a bacteria without the complexity that we now find in it, like a cartoon bacteria?

Why does the law of identity equal the law of causation?

Substance cannot be real, for if it were real, then it would be immutable, and so incapable of change; and nothing could be fashioned from it.

Perhaps the primal substance is an energy, which never changes, but only appears to.

[mikiel]

Iolaus:

Why does the law of identity equal the law of causation?...

Perhaps the primal substance is an energy, which never changes, but only appears to.

Consciousness is the eternal, uncaused cause. It is universal... same *identity* in all manifest forms. It transcends all manifest dimensions, eternally unchanging.
The next "step-down' from this transcendence is the "causal plane" in which intention kicks in to manifest whatever creation on whatever scale.

[Jehu]

I would say that the four elements are reducible to energy...

I am not sure why you would say that, for a thing is reducible if it can be defined in terms of the many (its components), and not the other way around. A quarter, for example, is reducible to two dimes and a nickel, or to some other combination of dimes, nickels or pennies; however, no such combination is reducible to quarter.

The point that I was trying to make was that the term ‘energy’ is merely a name that we apply to an amalgamation of the other four physical elements (i.e., space, time, matter and motion); and each of those elements is nothing more than a name for the amalgamation of the other four. For example, m = E/C2 and C2 = E/m. In other words, we cannot say what any of the five elements is without that we do so in terms of the other four elements; and this being the case, we cannot say that any of the five elements is real (absolute).

If the absolute manifested it, then it was perceived by a sentient being, no?

Yes, this is correct.

But let me ask again, do you believe that a rock could exist without its molecules and atoms before beings other than the absolute had examined it? And do you believe that there could be a bacteria without the complexity that we now find in it, like a cartoon bacteria?

To exist, is to be either perceived or imagined, and as only a sentient being can perceive or imagine, then it follows that there can be no existence without that there is at least one sentient being. Take the case of the text that is presently on your computer screen; would this text exist if there were no sentient beings in the universe? If there were no sentient beings whatsoever, how would this text become manifest? What would differentiate a letter from its background, one letter from another, one word from another, etc., etc.? In fact how could a completely non-sentient universe be said to exist at all; that is to say, what sort of meaning could be attributed to the term ‘exist’, if there were no sentient being that could perceive or imagine it.

Why does the law of identity equal the law of causation?

In his book, “The Problems of Philosophy”, Bertrand Russell said of the laws of thought (i.e., Principles of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle) “… what is important, is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.”

According to Russell then, if one is to think ‘truly’, then the development of one’s thoughts about a thing must be governed by the same law or laws that govern the development of the thing itself. The astonishing implication of Russell’s statement, if it is true, is that the laws of reason and the laws of causality are, in some fundamental sense, one and the same.

[mikiel]

Jehu:

The point that I was trying to make was that the term ‘energy’ is merely a name that we apply to an amalgamation of the other four physical elements (i.e., space, time, matter and motion)

Excuse the interruption of continuity here if you will, as I have not been following this thread since my early contribution, but...

How are space, time, and motion "physical elements?"
I understand that matter and energy convert back and forth but space is literally emptiness, the absence of substance of any kind. Time is the concept of event duration (the observed/theoretical "history" of designated "moments" defined, made finite within the actual reality the eternal, perpetual now (the ongong present.) And motion is the vector of mass/energy movement, not a physical element itself.
Please explain how you see these three as "physical elements.

And, if you have the patience, please catch me up on the "five elements" in your statement:
' In other words, we cannot say what any of the five elements is without that we do so in terms of the other four elements; and this being the case, we cannot say that any of the five elements is real (absolute).
Finally, I take it that you believe that the manifest creation is not "real" because it constantly changes. If it (manifest creation) always has existed and always will exist, as is clear to me, how is not "real?"
(I grant the eternal absolute reality of Consciousness ItSelf as Creator of the manifest cosmos as well. This is the meaning of non-dual reality... not two but One Being... universal Consciousness and manifest body... cosmos.

[mansman]

there is but one entity, and this one entity creates the universe by dividing itself into less and less complex entities. However, I do not mean that it really divides itself, for this is not possible, but that it thinks itself to be divided;

:)
Is that right, it "thinks itself" divided? Amazing.

Am I the only one here who wants to know WHY?
Can you tell us WHY, Jehu.

(but only answer if you REALLY know because this to imporant to guess at!)
thank you.

[Jehu]

How are space, time, and motion "physical elements?"

What I meant when I said that: space, time, matter, energy and motion are the five elements of physics is not that each of the elements is “physical”, but that these five notions form the conceptual foundation of the physical sciences; and that without them, there could be no physics or chemistry.

And, if you have the patience, please catch me up on the "five elements" in your statement: ' In other words, we cannot say what any of the five elements is without that we do so in terms of the other four elements; and this being the case, we cannot say that any of the five elements is real (absolute).

Here, I mean that the five elements cannot exist independent of one another, but must all be present in any given physical thing. For example, no material entity can exist without that it exists somewhere and at sometime, and must be possessed of some energy and abide in some state of motion.

Finally, I take it that you believe that the manifest creation is not "real" because it constantly changes. If it (manifest creation) always has existed and always will exist, as is clear to me, how is not "real?"

As I have said repeatedly, do not misconstrue my saying that essence is not real, as meaning that it does not exist – for there is nothing that does not exist. Real and not real merely denote the two possible modes of existence: the one being absolute and necessary (real), and the other relative and contingent (merely apparent).

I grant the eternal absolute reality of Consciousness ItSelf as Creator of the manifest cosmos as well. This is the meaning of non-dual reality... not two but One Being... universal Consciousness and manifest body... cosmos.

The absolute (awareness) and the relative (knowledge) are the two interdependent and complementary aspects of the one true entity - 'Being'; interdependent in that neither aspect can exist without the other, and complementary in that the two aspects complete one another in that one entity. This is meaning of the ‘not-two’ or ‘non-dualistic’ nature of reality, and it is this principle of interdependent complementarity that is embodied in the ‘Tai Chi Tu’.

[Jehu]

there is but one entity, and this one entity creates the universe by dividing itself into less and less complex entities. However, I do not mean that it really divides itself, for this is not possible, but that it thinks itself to be divided;

:)
Is that right, it "thinks itself" divided? Amazing.

Am I the only one here who wants to know WHY?
Can you tell us WHY, Jehu.

(but only answer if you REALLY know because this to imporant to guess at!)
thank you.

In an essentially cognizant reality, reason and cause are identical (one and the same), and so to ask why there is such a reality is to ask what caused it. Now, as we have already said, that which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (the absolute), is self-caused, and therefore needs no reason (cause) for being, for it partakes of an necessary and not merely contingent existence. The relative, on the other hand, is not self-caused, and so its existence is contingent upon another - the absolute.

[mansman]

there is but one entity, and this one entity creates the universe by dividing itself into less and less complex entities. However, I do not mean that it really divides itself, for this is not possible, but that it thinks itself to be divided;

:)
Is that right, it "thinks itself" divided? Amazing.

Am I the only one here who wants to know WHY?
Can you tell us WHY, Jehu.

(but only answer if you REALLY know because this to imporant to guess at!)
thank you.

In an essentially cognizant reality, reason and cause are identical (one and the same), and so to ask why there is such a reality is to ask what caused it. Now, as we have already said, that which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (the absolute), is self-caused, and therefore needs no reason (cause) for being, for it partakes of an necessary and not merely contingent existence. The relative, on the other hand, is not self-caused, and so its existence is contingent upon another - the absolute.

Right, right, this one you have already explained so no need a repeat, agree?
The question now which is still not answered is, WHY does (the absolute) think this relative into being (instead of NOT thinking it into being, for example).

You dont know, do you!

OK, time to ask brothers QRS to answer, lets have it men.......

[mikiel]

How are space, time, and motion "physical elements?"

What I meant when I said that: space, time, matter, energy and motion are the five elements of physics is not that each of the elements is “physical”, but that these five notions form the conceptual foundation of the physical sciences; and that without them, there could be no physics or chemistry.

You wrote: "The point that I was trying to make was that the term ‘energy’ is merely a name that we apply to an amalgamation of the other four physical elements (i.e., space, time, matter and motion)
I repeat your words: "the other four physical elements (i.e., space, time, matter and motion)
So now they are no longer "physical elements" but rather "the conceptual foundation of the physical sciences; and that without them, there could be no physics or chemistry." Quite a difference for one so concerned with conceptual precision... No?

The real world exists independently regardless of human "conceptual foundations" such as your elaborate edifice of concepts *about* reality. (This is denied by our web hosts here who insist on a special brand of idealism... 'Its all in our collective mind.')

I do thank you for the clarification of what seemed an absurdity that time, space, and motion were "physical elements." You replied:

Here, I mean that the five elements cannot exist independent of one another, but must all be present in any given physical thing. For example, no material entity can exist without that it exists somewhere and at sometime, and must be possessed of some energy and abide in some state of motion.

And, if you have the patience, please catch me up on the "five elements" in your statement: ' In other words, we cannot say what any of the five elements is without that we do so in terms of the other four elements; and this being the case, we cannot say that any of the five elements is real (absolute).

Finally, I take it that you believe that the manifest creation is not "real" because it constantly changes. If it (manifest creation) always has existed and always will exist, as is clear to me, how is not "real?"

As I have said repeatedly, do not misconstrue my saying that essence is not real, as meaning that it does not exist – for there is nothing that does not exist. Real and not real merely denote the two possible modes of existence: the one being absolute and necessary (real), and the other relative and contingent (merely apparent).

But actually... unicorns and fairies do not exist but in human fantasy/imagination. "Merely apparent" in such imagination?

It would help to clarify the difference here between mere fantasy/imagination and the usual consensus on what objectively exists, specifically as defined by empirical science. If "its all in our minds" we are left with the absurdity of classical idealism... ultimately condensed to solipsism.

I grant the eternal absolute reality of Consciousness ItSelf as Creator of the manifest cosmos as well. This is the meaning of non-dual reality... not two but One Being... universal Consciousness and manifest body... cosmos.

The absolute (awareness) and the relative (knowledge) are the two interdependent and complementary aspects of the one true entity - 'Being'; interdependent in that neither aspect can exist without the other, and complementary in that the two aspects complete one another in that one entity. This is meaning of the ‘not-two’ or ‘non-dualistic’ nature of reality, and it is this principle of interdependent complementarity that is embodied in the ‘Tai Chi Tu’.

How are space, time, and motion "physical elements?"

Other than a difference in what we mean by "relative" (you say "knowledge'... I say manifest creation, independent of what humans *know* about it)... we are in agreement on the above.

This is a bit chopped up as to the quotes and bold replies for contrast. Not my best editing. Please grant slack for a Sat. nite after the Celebration of Life in Eugene. (No, dear critics... not drunk, but feeling the buzz very nicely, thank you.)
(Hey, Jehu... is your whole life as formal and straight-laced as your thread presentation? I know... irrelevant to the topic! )

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

A thing is always more complex that its parts, and so the further we reduce a thing, the less complex its parts become. Ultimately, we can reduce a thing no further, only once we reach that point where we can differentiate no further components – that is to say, when we can neither perceive nor imagine anything less complex. The concept of ‘matter’ is just such a thing, for it cannot be reduced to any simpler; but only to a quality (mass) and a relation (extension); and every entity must comprise both a quality and a relation.

Sorry to backtrack a bit. If we consider the Absolute to be the Totality of all that exists, then I suppose we could say it divides itself into less and less complex parts. Is this your conception?
I doubt I can ever agree with that. Nothing would make sense.

I am a bit dismayed that the continuation of our discussion may depend upon my seeing that small things do not make up bigger things, and that the absolute divides itself into simpler components, when I am quite sure the opposite is the case.

I would say that the four elements are reducible to energy...

I am not sure why you would say that, for a thing is reducible if it can be defined in terms of the many (its components), and not the other way around. A quarter, for example, is reducible to two dimes and a nickel, or to some other combination of dimes, nickels or pennies; however, no such combination is reducible to quarter.

Energy may indeed be absolute and immutable. Energy is a latent capacity in matter, but matter is condensed energy. Energy performs many functions, but is not tied to any one function. You say energy requires motion, but motion is not a separate item, it is what energy does. Energy does not depend upon mass or form. We must find out what is the fundament of existence. Either it is energy, or else energy is very close. Perhaps you will say that the fundament of existence is awareness, which needs no motion.

To exist, is to be either perceived or imagined, and as only a sentient being can perceive or imagine, then it follows that there can be no existence without that there is at least one sentient being.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to see that this is the case. It would be wonderful to prove, for it would be a proof of God.

If there were no sentient beings whatsoever, how would this text become manifest? What would differentiate a letter from its background, one letter from another, one word from another, etc., etc.? In fact how could a completely non-sentient universe be said to exist at all; that is to say, what sort of meaning could be attributed to the term ‘exist’, if there were no sentient being that could perceive or imagine it.

I agree there would be no meaning. Suppose though, that in the next second, every sentient being in the universe dies. What do you suppose will happen to your computer screen? Will it disappear?

I agree with this:
“… what is important, is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.”

But don't quite see this:

if it is true, is that the laws of reason and the laws of causality are, in some fundamental sense, one and the same.

[Jehu]

You wrote: "The point that I was trying to make was that the term ‘energy’ is merely a name that we apply to an amalgamation of the other four physical elements (i.e., space, time, matter and motion)
I repeat your words: "the other four physical elements (i.e., space, time, matter and motion)
So now they are no longer "physical elements" but rather "the conceptual foundation of the physical sciences; and that without them, there could be no physics or chemistry." Quite a difference for one so concerned with conceptual precision... No?

With all due respect, if they are the fundamental elements of physics, then I can rightfully call them the “physical elements”; and this does not necessarily mean that each of them is itself physical. The fact is, that you simply did not understand what I meant by the term “physical elements” because, by your own admission, you have not been following the course of the enquiry; and not because I failed to precisely define the term.

The real world exists independently regardless of human "conceptual foundations" such as your elaborate edifice of concepts *about* reality. (This is denied by our web hosts here who insist on a special brand of idealism... 'Its all in our collective mind.')

That might very well be, but until you can provide a logical demonstration as to why this is necessarily the case, I can see no reason to favour your metaphysical view over any other.

But actually... unicorns and fairies do not exist but in human fantasy/imagination. "Merely apparent" in such imagination?

It would help to clarify the difference here between mere fantasy/imagination and the usual consensus on what objectively exists, specifically as defined by empirical science. If "its all in our minds" we are left with the absurdity of classical idealism... ultimately condensed to solipsism.

I will not go into to all this again, for we have been through this enough already. If you are truly interested, I would suggest that you read through the thread carefully, and then if you have any specific objections, I will happily address them.

[Jehu]

The question now which is still not answered is, WHY does (the absolute) think this relative into being (instead of NOT thinking it into being, for example).

The one absolute entity (Awareness) gives rise to the myriad relative entities (Knowledge) simply because there would be no existence otherwise; for if the essence of that which is necessary and immutable (absolute) were not contingent and subject to continuous change (relative), then the whole of Being would be inert and dead.

Ultimately, Being (that which is) is neither real nor not real, nor is it both nor is it neither; for awareness and knowledge are not two separate (independent) things, but neither are they exactly the same thing.

[Jehu]

Sorry to backtrack a bit. If we consider the Absolute to be the Totality of all that exists, then I suppose we could say it divides itself into less and less complex parts. Is this your conception?

Yes, the absolute is like the active container, and the relative is like its passive content, and while the container is real, the content is only apparent. This may be liken to the case of the human mind, which may hold a wide variety of different thoughts (ideas), and although these thoughts may arise or cease, or may even amalgamate to form more complex thoughts, none of these goings on will ultimately alter the nature of mind itself (awareness) – but only its content (knowledge).

I am a bit dismayed that the continuation of our discussion may depend upon my seeing that small things do not make up bigger things, and that the absolute divides itself into simpler components, when I am quite sure the opposite is the case.

Clearly, this is the way that things appear to be constituted, and this is why it is so difficult to abandon the notion. This is why we must put our trust in reason, and turn to empirical experiences only to verify what we have deduced.

Let us take a look at the notion in question: if we take a thing apart, there remains nothing of the thing accepts it parts. Then, if we disassemble these parts, there remains nothing of them except their parts. And if we continue to do this until there remains nothing that can be disassembled, what are we then left with?
The simple fact of the matter is that with all of the resources that are available to modern physics, no fundamental particle has ever been definitively established; and all theoretical particles of the past, have been subsequently disassembled – albeit theoretically. Now, the question is this: if material things are built up of smaller material things, then there must be a fundamental particle of matter, which is the primitive building block of all material thing; for a infinite regress of smaller and smaller particles is logically untenable.
Now, lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is such a fundamental particle, and that it is real (absolute); how then can such a particle influence or be influenced by another particle, given that an absolute entity is unrelated to any extrinsic (external) thing. However, even if we set this insurmountable question aside, we are still left with the question: how does the amalgamation of two or more of these particles result in anything more than a clump; for nothing can arise without a cause, and so a thing must be fully accounted for in its causes.

Energy may indeed be absolute and immutable. Energy is a latent capacity in matter, but matter is condensed energy. Energy performs many functions, but is not tied to any one function. You say energy requires motion, but motion is not a separate item, it is what energy does. Energy does not depend upon mass or form. We must find out what is the fundament of existence. Either it is energy, or else energy is very close. Perhaps you will say that the fundament of existence is awareness, which needs no motion.

According to Einstein’s formula, energy is related to mass, space, time and motion, and so if energy can change into any one of these things, how then can we claim that it is immutable? Further, why can we not claim the same absolute status for the other four elements?

Unfortunately, I have not been able to see that this is the case. It would be wonderful to prove, for it would be a proof of God.

I do not see that it would prove anything of the sort, for “existence’ is a human concept, and as such, has a precise meaning. This meaning is clear, if one simply takes the time to read what the ancient essentialists had to say of it, for after all it is the language of ancient essentialism that has given us the term. To exist is to stand out before the mind, as its object, and a thing can be only be given to the mind either though the senses, or through the faculty of imagination.

I agree there would be no meaning. Suppose though, that in the next second, every sentient being in the universe dies. What do you suppose will happen to your computer screen? Will it disappear?

It would simply cease to exist - as a computer screen, or any other 'thing'.

I agree with this:
“… what is important, is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.”

But don't quite see this: if it is true, is that the laws of reason and the laws of causality are, in some fundamental sense, one and the same.

What Russell is saying is that things behave in accordance with the laws of thought, and since whatever happens must have a cause, it follows that the law of causality must be closely related to the law of identity. By this I mean that law which governs the amalgamation of things to create new things (causality), is the same as the law which governs the amalgamation of ideas into new ideas (reason).

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Yes, the absolute is like the active container, and the relative is like its passive content, and while the container is real, the content is only apparent. This may be liken to the case of the human mind, which may hold a wide variety of different thoughts (ideas), and although these thoughts may arise or cease, or may even amalgamate to form more complex thoughts, none of these goings on will ultimately alter the nature of mind itself (awareness) – but only its content (knowledge).

This is fine, but I don't think it proves that the contents of the container did not grow naturally from small beginnings. There isn't all that much in the mind of a newborn, the things get built up gradually. Likewise, I don't think that the Totality always contains full-blown stars and planets and animals, rather these things unfolded from simple beginnings.

Let us take a look at the notion in question: if we take a thing apart, there remains nothing of the thing accepts it parts. Then, if we disassemble these parts, there remains nothing of them except their parts. And if we continue to do this until there remains nothing that can be disassembled, what are we then left with?

Likewise, when you build a bicycle, you start with a metal, then you shape and polish it, then paint it, and so on. You are describing the taking apart of an already assembled entity, but its components come from the build up of simple elements.

Now, the question is this: if material things are built up of smaller material things, then there must be a fundamental particle of matter, which is the primitive building block of all material thing; for a infinite regress of smaller and smaller particles is logically untenable.

Not only infinite regress is impossible, but there must be such a mother substance, logically, because if there is a compound substance, then we must break it apart. The only possibility is that there is more than one type of fundamental particle, but this I doubt.

Now, lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is such a fundamental particle, and that it is real (absolute); how then can such a particle influence or be influenced by another particle, given that an absolute entity is unrelated to any extrinsic (external) thing.

The fundamental particles are within the absolute, are an aspect of the absolute or an expression of the absolute, and this fundamental particle permutates, first into a positive and negative and then generates the whole material universe. Even the positive and negative only appear to be opposite. This whole fantastic material universe of 92 or 103 elements can all be broken down into one primal substance, nothing changes despite that it all changes, but at root is just one thing. That is the root of materiality, but whether that is the ultimate source, I don't know.

However, even if we set this insurmountable question aside, we are still left with the question: how does the amalgamation of two or more of these particles result in anything more than a clump; for nothing can arise without a cause, and so a thing must be fully accounted for in its causes.

You take two gases. Hydrogen and oxygen, and you get water. You take a proton and electron, then add another electron, and you get a new element.
In what way does this impinge on causation? Who says it isn't caused?

According to Einstein’s formula, energy is related to mass, space, time and motion, and so if energy can change into any one of these things, how then can we claim that it is immutable? Further, why can we not claim the same absolute status for the other four elements?

Energy and mass are the same thing, time and motion are a measurement of energy and its activities. Space - you said space was the absolute, or the generator of everything. A comment I'd like to get back to.

But I am not really claiming that energy is immutable, and therefore, there must be something more profound than energy. But I think that energy is not equal to the other four. Can time become energy? Not at all. Has motion any meaning except as it describes energy? No.

The puzzle, though, is how the hell anything manages to exist, and what quality can the existent thing have, such that it is uncaused? But to exist is to be not nothing, and the first thing that must be caused or created or prove that existence is factual, would be energy. Can anything exist without energy?

I do not see that it would prove anything of the sort, for “existence’ is a human concept, and as such, has a precise meaning. This meaning is clear, if one simply takes the time to read what the ancient essentialists had to say of it, for after all it is the language of ancient essentialism that has given us the term. To exist is to stand out before the mind, as its object, and a thing can be only be given to the mind either though the senses, or through the faculty of imagination.

If nothing can exist without a mind to perceive it, then there is a mind from the beginning. Would that not prove God?

I agree there would be no meaning. Suppose though, that in the next second, every sentient being in the universe dies. What do you suppose will happen to your computer screen? Will it disappear?

It would simply cease to exist - as a computer screen, or any other 'thing'.

That's nuts!

By this I mean that law which governs the amalgamation of things to create new things (causality), is the same as the law which governs the amalgamation of ideas into new ideas (reason).

Well, I don't see it so I hope it isn't too important.

[Jehu]

Isoluas,

Perhaps we should come at it from slightly different perspective, for our present discussion is becoming too disjointed; so let us return to the dream analogy once again, and see what it can tell us with respect to how the objective world is really constructed.

In a state of deep sleep there is neither a dreamer nor a dream, and this may be likened to not existing, for there is neither subject (awareness) nor objects (knowledge). Then, the dreamer begins to construct a dream-world based upon the dreamer’s imperfect knowledge; and by ‘imperfect’ I mean that this knowledge is not only severely limited, but often erroneous – for it is founded mainly upon inductive inference – an imperfect form of reasoning.

However, the dreamer does not first construct its dream world out of some sort of fundamental dream particles, laws, etc., and then inhabit that dream world in the form of a sentient dream being (persona). Rather, the first aspect to appear in the dream is the persona itself, or at least the subjective awareness of the persona. There is a sort of awakening, and in conjunction there is the manifestation of sensations such as; colours, sounds, smells, etc. (essence), within which are embodied various identifiable forms which the dream persona posits to be independently existing entities. From here the dream will evolve along whatever story line the dreamer’s fragmented awareness deems appropriate, and given the incomplete and somewhat erroneous nature of the dreamer’s knowledge, may or may not be entirely logical – though it will seem so in the dream. The elements (essence) of the dream world are draw from the dreamer’s own memory, and are nothing more than bits of knowledge which has been acquired from past sensual experiences, and subsequently modified or personalized by that interpretive mental process we call imagination. This knowledge is embodied in certain structures within the dreamer’s brain, and so is accessible to the dreamer alone.

The important thing to note here is that the dreamer, upon awakening, has no recollection of anything that may have occurred before the dream began, nor any recollection of having fashion the dream world in which its dream persona dwelt. All that the awakened dreamer can remember, if anything at all, are those experiences that its dream persona had while in the dream state.

The absolute (awareness) may be likened to the dreamer, and the objective world is analogous to its knowledge, however, unlike the sentient dreamer, the absolute has access to perfect knowledge; that is to say, knowledge which is both complete and true; and operates upon that knowledge with perfect reasoning (deduction). Consequently, the objective world evolves in a logical fashion – in strict accordance with the laws of thought. And just as it was the dreamer who truly experiences the dream, it is the absolute that truly experiences the objective world (relative), by embodying itself within the objective world in the form of all manner of sentient beings. However, just as the dream person is not real, neither is the sentient being real; for all beings are subject to creation, alteration, and eventual destruction; and so cannot be real (absolute).

[Iolaus]

Yes, this was well written BTW, and I have no comment.

The important thing to note here is that the dreamer, upon awakening, has no recollection of anything that may have occurred before the dream began, nor any recollection of having fashion the dream world in which its dream persona dwelt.

There have been a few occasions, I think, where I have remembered more than one dream upon awakening. And what do you make of lucid dreaming?

[Jehu]

There have been a few occasions, I think, where I have remembered more than one dream upon awakening. And what do you make of lucid dreaming?

A very timely question, for lucid dreaming and perfect enlightenment have a great deal in common. Just as it is possible to train one’s mind to remain fully cognizant while entering into a dream state, by not allowing the fragment of awareness that constitutes the persona to laps into ignorance (unknowingness); it is also possible to train one’s mind to awaken within the greater dream that is being or existence. And just as the lucid dreamer is devoid of all fear and able to control the flow of their dream, so too are the awakened ones devoid of all fear and able to control the flow of their lives.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

A very timely question, for lucid dreaming and perfect enlightenment have a great deal in common. Just as it is possible to train one’s mind to remain fully cognizant while entering into a dream state, by not allowing the fragment of awareness that constitutes the persona to laps into ignorance (unknowingness); it is also possible to train one’s mind to awaken within the greater dream that is being or existence. And just as the lucid dreamer is devoid of all fear and able to control the flow of their dream, so too are the awakened ones devoid of all fear and able to control the flow of their lives.

Well, that would be an enlightenment worth having, now wouldn't it. Actually, I think that I have awakened within the dream, but just lightly, like an early morning dozing toward near consciousness, and then lapsing back into dreams...what am I missing?

As for lucid dreams, there have been for me several steps. For many years, most of my life, beginning in chidlhood, I had falling dreams which were a bit sickening. It's funny how many years it took to get a realization that I was having "one of those dreams again." Eventually, it occurred to me that I could combat it by learning to fly in my dreams. This was difficult, physically ,to do, but I did it and got better at it. I have had many flying dreams, and enjoy them a lot. Eventually I was impervious to the fear of falling because I could always fly and would then enter a nice long pleasurable dream. Yet I would not call them lucid, not quite. But they became increasingly so.

And they have tapered off. But at some point I began to occasionally have a dream in which I knew I was dreaming. It was brief and it did not occur to me to take control. One day I had a dream that I suddenly knew was a dream due to its absurdity, and decided to play and act ridiculous in it. I have also had dreams of waking from dreams, talking to my family about the dream - while still dreaming but being sure I had awoken. Once, this happened 3 times before I finally truly awoke on the 4th. A dream within a dream within a dream.

I read someone on the net saying that in a lucid dream you can do what you want, and so I have tried that a few times, with rather less success. I seem to lose control of the dream pretty quickly.

In the past couple of years, I have had numerous dreams of suffocation and being pinned somehow, a lifelong fear of mine. I have decided that the next step is to not fight the suffocation, but let myself go ahead and die in the dream, or just see what happens if I don't struggle, in hopes of facing this fear (which is really quite strong.) However, the couple of times it has occurred since, I have not been able to maintain the presence of mind to do so, and end up awakening suddenly, as usual. They seem to have tapered somewhat too. As if some part of my subconscious only generates the dreams that are a challenge, and stops when I conquer them. I haven't conquered the suffocation dreams, but given the chance I might do so.

This all seems to me an important part of my development, quite hidden from my daily life but relevant to it, and for this reason I took issue with Brokenhead when he said dreams are like psychic trash or bowel movements.

I don't know how to fall asleep while also keeping the thread of my awareness in control. Besides, what about the dreamless sleep that is so restful?