Explicit Absolute Truths

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Caio Alex.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Silly drama on your part, Pam.

It's 'ciao' BTW and - note the marvellous dualism - it means both 'goodbye' and 'hello'.

Which aspect are you 'identifying' with? ;-)
I talk, God speaks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

It is time to refresh the Topic with more absolute theory. This post explains two strange features of the Absolute: the void and the inadequacy of proof. Both matters involve the avoidance of antitheses / opposites.

To begin with a reiteration: absolute Truth cannot be comprehended with objectivity / empiricism / duality / dialectic reasoning. Kindly do not speculate on what I will explain. Please take the trouble to learn my metaphysic.

In absolute terms, the opposite of something is not nothingness. An absolute thesis cannot afford an antithesis, and even ‘nothingness’ serves as an antithesis. Appearances and the void co-exist. The co-existence of the void with appearances is a perennial mystical adage and persons who know only objectivity are intrigued by this possibility.

All that is real is due to dichotomies, i.e. yin—yang. The reciprocals, i.e. yin and yang, share in the cause of an event. When inquiring into a phenomenon we are apt to seek a monist cause. Of the individual we search a self, but no centre of activity actually exists. This is True of our selves as mind—body and it is True of our Minds as the source of individual consciousness.

A dichotomous explanation for causation is the only context that accommodates something and nothingness as integral to existence.

Comprehension of the something—nothing dichotomy is incidental to weightier, causal issues. Something and nothing are not causing creation, e.g. something is not yin and nothingness is not yang. Personally, the explanation for the void it is not fascinating. There are more important relationships to take cognition of, but the ability to accommodate the void in my metaphysic helps establish my bona fides.

Absolute Truth is not accompanied by proof. Proof is attendant upon objective truth, but nothing can be attendant / ancillary to Truth. Again, it is the old “avoid an antithesis” problem. Nothing can be attendant to or ancillary to the Absolute.

Conventional thinkers will think that an absolute thesis without proof is next to a failure. Ironically, proof would disprove Truth.

The absence of proof for Truth is compensated for by the enormity of the insight that accompanies Truth. Absolute Truth of any size beggars proof; too much is involved for a proof, and anyway, because Truth and truth have nothing in common, truth is not part of Truth, so proof is not part of the picture.

Each Truth is transcendence. In politics, Truth transcends values. In religion, Truth transcends metaphors. In history, Truth transcends craziness; teleological purpose replaces “one damn thing after another”.

I should mention that teleology is more readily grasped than ontology. Teleology is abstract theory matched to historic fact, which is simpler than ontology as abstract theory matched to abstract theory. When history has a purpose, one needs to know the ontological goal before its emergence across history is evident. It is a pity that ontology must come before teleology.

Big Truths like ontology, teleology and culture convince by their power of synthesis. Appreciate please, that synthesis is missing in duality, so serial syntheses are a phenomenon in their own right. Ontology unifies individuality, politics and religion into one Idea: Mind. Mind simply cannot be proven, and duality is too shallow to disprove it.

Do you wish to stand “on the edge of time”? – Purpose exists in history amongst the disasters arising from dualistic reasoning. Deeper than the facts of history are metaphysical patterns that are plain to see when objectivity is demoted.

In the case of the biggest of all Truths: culture, Idealism completes the overthrow of duality. The two big dualistic precepts are ethics and objectivity. Idealism eschews ethics and objectivity to present “reality” and in its estimation, European culture is laudable. Whereas ethics instils the submissiveness of Nietzschean “slave morality”, Idealism reveals there is something to revere. Refugees surging into Europe are witnesses to something superior about the West and Idealism identifies exactly what that something is.

When the shabbiness of duality is fully revealed, there is no need of proof to affirm Truth and denounce duality. I want people to reading my metaphysic and writing a review. They don’t need to prove or affirm anything. It should be no problem to say a new logic exists and the status quo is wrecked.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

Conventional thinkers will think that an absolute thesis without proof is next to a failure. Ironically, proof would disprove Truth.
What is an "absolute thesis"?
Between Suicides
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Brilliant question, top marks to Leyla.

An absolute thesis is somewhere in the region of an oxymoron. I have problems with this description. It is semantics.

Absolute philosophies are syntheses. However, when presented for public criticism they must be viewed as a thesis so that the full impact of a rejection can register. An Absolute philosophy cannot afford to be exposed to an antithesis. If a genuine antithesis arises then it is all over.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

I certainly found your post thoughtful, and interesting; especially the angle of an historical synthesis as "absolute philosophy". You've got my thumbs up.
Absolute philosophies are syntheses. However, when presented for public criticism they must be viewed as a thesis so that the full impact of a rejection can register. An Absolute philosophy cannot afford to be exposed to an antithesis. If a genuine antithesis arises then it is all over.
Yes, dialectics.

The question appears then to suggest a sort of point of critical mass before such a synthesis can be realised - something to do with the Hegelian law: quantitative change leads to qualitative change? It's easy to think of empirical examples, but in the context of human history how do you think it fits in?
Between Suicides
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Great to make your acquaintance Leyla.

The great transition from quantitative to qualitative involves a political dualism that is resolved by its reinterpretation as a dichotomy. Can you guess which one? Since you asked I will write a post on this subject. Thank you.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

Likewise, Rod.

And, sure! I'd most definitely go with master/slave in Hegelian or, putting Hegel on his feet, capital/labour in Marxian.

What you propose then as synthesis proper would be Marx's "end of history" and a whole new dialectic.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Rod wrote:This post explains two strange features of the Absolute: the void and the inadequacy of proof. Both matters involve the avoidance of antitheses / opposites.

To begin with a reiteration: absolute Truth cannot be comprehended with objectivity / empiricism / duality / dialectic reasoning. Kindly do not speculate on what I will explain. Please take the trouble to learn my metaphysic.
The essence of the problem is here, and this seems rather obvious. What allows no proof is non-demonstrable, or if it is to be proved it is by definition merely intimated through intellectual gymnastics.

But when it comes to Marxian ideation (as an expression of Hegelian logics) one is dealing strictly in a domain of tangibles. At least it is generally presented in this way.

An absolute idealism will always function as an absolute intrusion into the material domain. I use the word 'intrusion' neutrally. The more radically active the definition (the Idea) the more 'violent' in this sense the imposition. This idea functions in all domains of life as I see things. An idealism, when taken seriously, and enacted, is always radical in effect.

To speak of a 'metaphysic' leads one to note that the term operates dualistically, or rather multivalently. The 'true' or 'obvious' metaphysic would be the one that explains and articulates precisely what we see occurring around us. That is, the natural world. The laws of nature and physics. We would naturally assume that all dimensions of life (human life obviously) will similarly be ruled by or preformed by an anterior 'metaphysic'. So, we surmise a metaphysic to explain and to order the human world.

In a very real sense - a tangible and articulate sense - a Marxian logic is, perhaps, the most applicable insofar as it mimics nature and is naturalistic. In this sense the 'imposition' of Marxian logic, the 'intrusion' of it, is defensible in naturalistic terms.

But if the criteria of one's 'metaphysic' is - what is the way to explain it? - intuited or extra-natural, it then is arbitrary and a matter of agreement. In other words, he who agrees with its tenets has been convinced by it, but what has convinced him is not a rationally-defensible proof, but rather an 'intuition'. This does harken back to the 'intellectualism' of the Middle Ages.

The master-slave dynamic is a deeply interesting question, at any level, and from whatever political orientation. Ideas direct, ideas control. A strong idea is in this sense 'the master' and the directed one a 'slave'. Though these ideas are hardly considerable and broachable in our present nevertheless the notion of power-dynamics is always there.

Power in the Marxian sense (and certainly if it is viewed historically), when it is applied into the plane of our life, is devastating. I mean more 'thoroughly interested in radical reformation' which accords with the directing Idea, and it must be understood that 'our world', and our selves, have been created through radical impositions. Nazism (the other pole?) is similarly impositional and yet - if history is the subject of judgment - somewhat less radical. Nevertheless, the two poles (or multi-polarities) must be placed on the table.

If one is to speak of idealism, of metaphysics, and radical impositions, one has to get clear not only about the structure of the 'metaphysical notion' one desires to communicate, but to hold constantly in mind that it will be, and it must be, applied to life in the most radical sense.
I talk, God speaks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Leyla. You were close but deviating in your last guess. And "No" to your "synthesis proper".

The key dualism is capitalism versus socialism, i.e. political economy. Leave out Marx. He has no relevance to my metaphysic.

The capitalism versus socialism dualism is loaded with thought, action and experiences like no other political issue. Once values are eschewed and ideologies are reduced to their bare bones, logic can be discovered. We need all the thought, action and history to discover logic. Political economy is immense and it takes this immensity to extract logic. It is analogous to gold mining with loads of over-burden to remove to find what matters.

Gustav. On a second reading I was able to follow you. Basically you are wandering off-course with your own pre-occupations. There is no Marxian or Hegelian logic, though Hegel was looking for logic. Leave off Marx and the Master - slave relationship. They are irrelevant.

On to semantics. A metaphysic is a philosophy about metaphysics. Metaphysics for most people are ideas. For you and I metaphysics are realities 'anterior' to appearances. Thank you for using 'anterior'.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

Would it be accurate then to sum up your metaphysic as follows: capitalism=thesis/socialism=antithesis political economy=synthesis/absolute philosophy?
Between Suicides
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Anyone coming into contact with the ideas of any other will come into that other stream with his own 'preoccupations'. My preoccupations are, of course, expressed in what I write.

You say 'moving off-course' but, and as always, it is 'course' that has to be defined. What is the course? It is true that I can't say that I understand your specific metaphysics - though certainly I am open to hearing about it - I have only my own notions to refer to.

An 'explicit absolute truth' has to translate into explicit lines of action. Explicit lines of action, when analysed, reveal a 'metaphysic'. Is it the utilitarian in me, the pragmatist, that wishes to inquire of you What is the function of your metaphysic? Why bother to define a metaphysic?

Marx might be dismissed or put to the side for consideration of some question, but if you mean put him aside as in forget or negate him (his influence and effect) I don't see that as possible. That means: strong idea is radical in effect.

However, none of this is to deviate you from your explanations so please feel free to carry on.

Your use of the term 'my metahpysics', I admit, throws me off. Do you mean a personal definition of metaphysics? Or a personal metaphysic that is yours alone?
I talk, God speaks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Leyla. Here it is: thesis = capitalism, antithesis = socialism, synthesis = capitalism--socialism.

When you know the details of the synthesis, you know the first rationalised absolute Truth in history and most importantly its logic. Now you can begin to do absolute metaphysics.

Gustav. 'Course' meant Topic, off-course meant off-Topic. Do you want to know when your musings are off-Topic? In this loose arena I don't mind if you especially want to ramble. You do try to contribute.

My first post introducing the Topic directs you to where you can become fully-informed.

"What is the function of your metaphysic?" is a serious question. Foremost the metaphysic attempts to provide 'transcendent insight' / sheer sapience / total understanding of the factors involved in a situation.

Lastly, a metaphysic is personal.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Metaphysics as a topic exists/has existed prior to your personal organisation and articulation of theory. It is a laden and I think also an extremely complex word. Metaphysics, in my view, cannot be conceived and should not be conceived, nor expressed, as personal. I have no great interest in studying, in detail, what is personal to a person.

My time is better devoted to attempting to understand how metaphysical ideas, in larger groups and 'nations', stand behind the specific attainments which I regard as valuable. In this, it is possible that your 'personal metaphysic' could amount to a 'rambling' in abstract, unconnected territories, though I might also suppose that you 'try to contribute'. ;-)

Rambling in unconnected territories, and ambling in disconnected metaphysics, is in my view a potential waste of my time. Since time is all we have, care in what one devotes time to, is essential.

To ask therefor 'What is the purpose of a metaphysic' and 'your metaphysic' is a necessary question in addition to being a serious one. 'Transcendent insight, sheer sapience, total understanding' are laden phrases - romantic phrases in a sense - but they only have value when they illuminate specificities. Mystical insight is not enough.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

You're wrong, and you're living in a fantasy world due to your over-attachment to language, the world you believe in doesn't exist.

You're still too egotistical and unconscious to see it. Doubt yourself more. No one can seek further for you. Just take the advice and contemplate without the distraction of your books.

How hard is that? Whats's the harm in that attempt? It's as if I were asking you to burn yourself alive.

Simple tests: do you endlessly move from distraction to distraction? Do you ever just stop, do nothing, and be aware of your own 'mind'? (As opposed to focusing your attention on any specific idea or 'external' event). If the answer is no to the second question, then you've admitted to the ignorance of dismissing this possibility.

Yes or no? Which is it?

It's not a war you're in. Come from a place of love, and understand that this is only a learning opportunity :) even if you were to placate a fool and entertain his idea, that is a learning opportunity, so what's the excuse?

Yes or a no, can't lie about it, can't avoid the reality of it.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

No mental world, nor any idea, could be said to exist, John. And yet what is said not to exist, has tremendous effect. According to you, and others who think like you, it is all fantasy.

I understand how your concepts are organized, I don't agree with them, as you know. But I don't disrespect them either. Yet I don't see much utility in going back over the same arguments and counter-arguments.

Someday - perhaps - you may come to see how your Teaching is a class of 'thought-reform'. (You do remember the references to Ernst Becker, don't you?)

It is an attempt to topple a mode, an activity, a way of being, by undermining it. Similar to the 'work' of a termite. As you know I am quite suspicious of your choices. Mediation and contemplation certainly have their place though. But it exists - I mean if it is to be a useful tool - in relationship with rational processes. It really is not one or the other, in my view.

I suppose it remains to be seen how Rod will articulate his personal grasp of things. He did begin this thread on a specific note, and he is attempting to develop his idea. It will be interesting to see where and how it fits with the 'absolutism' that is defined here, and if he does or does not agree with your methods.

It is possible that 'intuition' may have more of a link with what you so often talk about insofar as it is a way of knowing that, if you will, skips over rational mental processes.

I grow tired of all conversations which devolve into these semantic dead-ends. I am pretty clear about the intellectual path I am on, and so I continue to pursue it. I am not moved by your concerns or your discourse about your concerns. But I have read a great deal of what you have written.
It's not a war you're in. Come from a place of love ...
Creepy! ;-)
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

GB wrote: According to you, and others who think like you, it is all fantasy.
Growing up means learning the difference between fantasy and illusion, between unrestrained fancy and erroneous perception.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

That is a very true statement. The entire question, and all questions and decisions in life, revolve around that issue, in essence.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Rod wrote:If modern humans wish to live in harmony with nature, or if they seek philosophical resolution, they must join an idea of logic with logos-logic, hence logic must unite with the creative cause. The process is pains-taking because firstly logic must be found and secondly used to construct an immanent system. If the system is True, you can spy the creative cause, hence the third step is dependent upon preceding accuracy. The third step is the squaring of the idea / definition of logic with the logos.
What I find interesting here - and it is interesting to me not necessarily because it is 'true' but because one can see into it, and discover in it, its driving predicates rather easily, and that is a first step of self-consciousness - is the rather simplistic definitions, which are not at all out of accord with Christian theology (and other defined theologies). If one mentions 'logos' and such, and unless one counter-explains it, you are placing your discourse within a Greek-Christian context. A solid reference point would be Johannine doctrine which links back to Hermetic ideas.

And there you have it: the seeking after a logos of nature; a desire to find a harmonious synthesis between nature ('what is', 'what occurs') and then our own idea-structures: the way that we order our concepts. To speak of 'logos-logic' could be taken at two levels: One the mere logic of rationality. The other a seeking after 'metaphysical logic': that which explains rational logic, and that which explains the logic of what is and what occurs.

The obvious next step is to define how 'logic' and Logos (taken at a more universal level) inform and direct all reasoning and all possibility of choice, especially when it is conscious, intellectual choice. Choices that are automatic, or somatic, on non-rational, or non-voluntary, will fall into another order of conception, but they cannot be included in the 'higher' sense of the word.

Is such a way of organizing perspective invalid? Is it mistaken? I do not think that it is. It does very much revolve around decision and choice though. And to decide something means to have arrived at value-positions. What is antecedent to a rational and intelligent choice is really a whole structure that arises out of being itself.

When being interrogates being, at that point, in my view, is when one can say a 'metaphysic' of importance and relevance arises.

I do not and indeed cannot exclude 'Hegel on his feet' as Leyla said, pretty cleverly. It would be folly to exclude a major idea-force (Marx) that has moulded and continues to mould our human world.

The philosophical question, or perhaps the meta-philosophical question, is to discern what really is going on there, and then to be able to make a conscious choice of assent or dissent.

And in this sense the question of Master and Slave comes to the fore. It is my view that unless one understand the ideas that move one, and move in one, one is 'slave' to those ideas. What you don't really understand has power over you nonetheless. Only when and if one penetrates and in this sense dominates an idea can one countermand it.

The 'logics' of 'enlightenment' are, in many ways, logics of resistance, and logics of redefinition. Take John's (Seeker's) proposals. They are logics of undermining (resisting) a perceived folly or illusion or 'phantasy'. Something - a Rx of sorts - is brought to bear against it. That would be John's Teaching.
Diebert wrote:Existentialism however, begins with the human subject and not with any matter, object, history or historical materialism. It's just another discussion without as much overlap as you seem to be suggesting. Perhaps it's not even a real discussion, a critique I'd understand. Your efforts seem as philosophical as a the efforts of a common scientist. As long as you think "logos" must be understood as logic and one can "come to understand Christ's mission", then we're not even in the same discussion yet with hardly any term defined or agreed on. No problem though but you're not asking questions, you're just stating your own references. You are somehow presuming I have some position but that's the whole issue here: the subject and existential and spiritual experience. The only positions relevant here are those which show how feeble they all are: fundamentally uncertain and ambiguous. And how poor subjects, "ich und du", are propping up a position of make-belief through our discourse, as to raise our cloud platform. Good beautiful luck!
It is important I think to mention that Existentialism began (to use your verb) as a reaction and a resistance. One could say many things about it to orient one's understanding of it. If this is so, I do not think it is (really) outside of teleology or notions of spirit functioning in history. Rather, those who do not see things in that way have established/are establishing counter-propositional positions, and for certain - often good -reasons.

As to 'understanding Christ's mission' I will also beg to differ. The entire question of understanding this figure 'Christ', or defining him, of defining his 'mission', and of arriving at the cultural and even racial definitions which link him to a people existing historically in time, with certain modes and aptitudes, goes right to the heart of definitional questions which - despite an existentialist's rejection - are still very much present and, I'd say, relevant.

My interest in Rod's discourse was perked in a sense because he spoke of a need to define an 'anti-racialism'. It is my present view that every definition (all anthropology) which has been cast into the zones-of-the-forbidden - all of it! - has to be reconsidered and reanalysed. Not because it must be forced to become 'truth' (it may not be) but because thinking must be free to travel as it will and as it must, freely and sovereignly.

So much is 'feeble', so much is incomplete, and so much is dangerous. But really, it is philosophy itself that demands one traverse all these territories. Make sense of them.
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Please answer that second question I asked. Just for the purpose of curiosity and elucidation. I'm asking a simple question about your activities, there is a truthful and clear answer. Can you not understand the value in being honest about such a simple question in regards to communication?

I asked you once before but your answer was relatively vague.

" As you know I am quite suspicious of your choices. Mediation and contemplation certainly have their place though. But it exists - I mean if it is to be a useful tool - in relationship with rational processes."

It's a useful tool despite whatever rational processes occur in regards to conventional life.

Perhaps you misunderstand. The general 'claim' is that it far outweighs the insights and value of whatever other tools one can use. That doing so leads one to recognize truth that transcends any language, that applies to every aspect of life and every idea, that is certain and clear. The 'claim' is that it is of so much value that it is worth more than any material gain, that it far outweighs any choice, any lifestyle, and any perspective. That it is absolutely 'what you ought to do'.

On what logical authority could you claim that this claim is wrong? And much more importantly, how could you possibly justify the refusal to explore it? (If there is no refusal, then the answer must be yes?)
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

You are a card.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Poor Rod. And he just wanted to develop his metaphysic! ;-) (You just have to keep ploughing on here Rod; this is par-for-the-course).
Seeker wrote:Perhaps you misunderstand. The general 'claim' is that it far outweighs the insights and value of whatever other tools one can use. That doing so leads one to recognize truth that transcends any language, that applies to every aspect of life and every idea, that is certain and clear. The 'claim' is that it is of so much value that it is worth more than any material gain, that it far outweighs any choice, any lifestyle, and any perspective. That it is absolutely 'what you ought to do'.

On what logical authority could you claim that this claim is wrong? And much more importantly, how could you possibly justify the refusal to explore it? (If there is no refusal, then the answer must be yes?)
I think this is the most, shall I say, dramatic and explicit declaration that you have made to date. You have certainly avoided 'the excluded middle'!

I am curious: Since this is a declaration about a form of 'spiritual absolutism' - perhaps the closest relative it has is Indian notions of transcendent knowledge through activation of shakti (at least in the way you wrote it out) - and since both the forum and our newest contributor Rod speak in terms of 'absolute truths' and 'explicit absolute truths', if Rod's understandings are also to be described in this way. (He did describe his ends as 'transcendent insight, sheer sapience, total understanding').

And Diebert? Leyla? Russell? Jupiviv? Is this the enlightenment to be spoken of? Is this the real backdrop here and what you are ultimately speaking about?
I talk, God speaks
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

How should I know with anything more than speculation? Language is just pointers, truth is understood through personal insight.

You know the answer to my question though. Why do you avoid speaking the truth of it?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

Leyla. Here it is: thesis = capitalism, antithesis = socialism, synthesis = capitalism--socialism.

When you know the details of the synthesis, you know the first rationalised absolute Truth in history and most importantly its logic. Now you can begin to do absolute metaphysics.
"First"? I think that's exactly what Marx did with his critique ending in the ultimate proclamation that the end of capitalism (after it reaches its fullest potential) would be the end of history. Why do you dismiss it?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

I do not and indeed cannot exclude 'Hegel on his feet' as Leyla said, pretty cleverly. It would be folly to exclude a major idea-force (Marx) that has moulded and continues to mould our human world.
I'd love to take credit for that one, but unfortunately it's attributable only to Marx in response to Hegel's remark about the French Revolution being the point where man turned himself upside down and began to "walk on his head" (organise society "rationally" for the first time) and to Engels about Marx.

To give one the sense of Marx:
My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

[...] The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.
Between Suicides
Locked