Explicit Absolute Truths

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

For Marx, the "thesis/antithesis" constitute dialectical contradictions which lead to (as some have expressed) a "synthesis".

Marx himself never put it this way. Rather, he expressed this movement of men and their relations between each other and with nature to be a "materialist conception of history".
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 »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: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'm not really sure what the "it" is - is it, ultimately, meditation and contemplation "regardless" of rational thought?

If so, my first question is, what is meant by contemplation exactly? Staring at something until you get some random thought out of nowhere? Some epiphany?
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by jupiviv »

Marx wrote: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.
If that were true, then the material world is itself a reflection of the human mind since in the case of this assertion its reflection upon the human mind takes the form of itself as a reflection upon the human mind.

Meanwhile, *everyone* ignores the one thing that Marx (and all of the classical economists before him) got absolutely right - debt is not money, and neither is the power not to pay off debt without suffering the consequences. For postmodern society to function, Marx must be given away for free with every purchase of Keynes or Friedman (now with spicy Neocon seasoning!).
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

What is also interesting, and I mean this in respect to Seeker's declaration, is that Seeker mirrors in this sense a Hegelian view: that an Idea is dominant and functions top-down. (Insofar as I understand Hegel's position and perhaps I am inaccurately paraphrasing it).

You don't need to pay attention to the 'material paths', or the hard aspect of having to dig understanding out of the chaos, but rather that you 'tune-in' to it, channel it so to speak.

It is a rather common conceptual arrangement, and perhaps natural to our being and way of understanding.

If Seeker's view is established at one pole, and a totally counter-metaphysical pole established at the other, I suppose I'd end up synthesising them.

It seems to me then that what we human beings do - these strange biological units who develop and function with consciousness - is to develop and give life and form to what must already exist as potential in the cosmic structure. In this sense then we only uncover what is already there. What we do is then part-and-parcel of processes and will, I assume, be repeated here and everywhere, eternally, within the cosmic manifestation.
  • 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'.
I'd have to say that I can't disagree with this declaration insofar as I have supported it in a sense in what I wrote, above.

But analysis of actualities (history, and the history of the evolution of ideas, and certainly the development of experimental science) indicate that the processes by which we 'extract out of the ether', to put it quaintly, our knowledges, and the way we assemble them and build them up, is not at all like gaining them from some sort of vision, or whatever Seeker is referring to (which I do not understand).

I would say that the 'tools' which are seen as secondary and non-relavant to the primary tool (whatever in the heck it is according to Seeker), are in fact really rather primary or in any case it all functions together, somehow.

The question of 'true knowledge' and 'powerful knowledge', and its relationship to specific people who embody 'a spirit of the time', presents itself as important. I'd say that this is where my Eurocentrism has its roots.
I talk, God speaks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

This post overviews my ontology. It includes the definition of metaphysical logic. I cannot supply details, but I will provide a story.

Here again is the Idealist model of reality:

Creative cause --> immanence --> appearances

The creative cause is energy and logic. Energy furnishes the material side of life and is inseparable from consciousness represented by logic. A stone has some small degree of consciousness; a planet is conscious of its orbit. Energy and consciousness are entwined and non-duality begins from there.

Logic is the design of creation and one design serves for all of creation. The life-force does not remain simple for long. It becomes modified into “the ten-thousand creations” [if I am quoting Buddhism correctly] / infinite variety as it passes through immanence. It is human immanence that concerns us. When the life-force reaches appearances the formative, metaphysical processes are totally hidden.

Logic and energy become complex as they transit immanence. Human complexity equates with ‘Mind’. Mind is ‘Ideas’ [capital “I”] that organised and govern existence. Ideas are logic-based causes, rather than concepts, i.e. logic actively works. Hence Mind is a complex of linked causes. [The details will delight. Mind is not onerous.]

Once the life-force reaches appearances genes take over to make the human mix, very mixed. Genes are empiricism’s business. Idealists seek to know immanence and the creative cause based on the evidence they can assemble. ‘Assemble’ is the key word because Idealism is all about syntheses. The cover of my book has a motif that expresses three, serial syntheses. Ontology is three syntheses which I will broadly explain.

The retracing of the inductive process begins with the discovery of metaphysical logic. This can be likened to searching for the ‘hallmark’ of the creative cause, where the hallmark is everywhere, but in bits. Everything bears the imprint of logic, because logic made it, but it is exceeding hard to find in appearances. One of two big clues to logic is male—female. Dichotomies are self-perpetuating. However this way-out-in-the-open, absolute dichotomy does not connect to another similar dichotomy, it does not suggest how immanent complexity occurs and nor does it allow transcendence of ethics. When metaphysical causes are unknown, life is lived according to objective and ethics. Ultimately dualisms assist the discovery of logic, but until logic is found they complicate life and its transcendence.

Amongst the ideas that are the basis for definitive Idealism, there is evolution. Idealist evolution is a different fish to biological evolution and here I introduce G. W. F. Hegel [1770 – 1831]. Hegel was onto evolution before Darwin, and so were a few others. It was an idea being born at that time. Hegel’s evolution concerns ideas evolving through political experience. Credit has to be given to Hegel for this insight because he died in 1831 and socialism by name was first mentioned in 1827, hence he died before political ideology seriously started. Male—female must be ‘paired’ with a political dichotomy to realise metaphysical progress. This is not objectively obvious. The scarcity of clues obliges a metaphysician to look into this possibility.

The second big clue is the resolution of political economy. This complex dualism involving capitalism and socialism has been reinterpreted as a dichotomy. When these antagonistic ideologies are reconciled, logic is found.

This is the definition of metaphysical logic: subjective events countervail objective events between existential reciprocals.

The above formula joins two sets of reciprocals. Objectivity and subjectivity interact with another set of reciprocals to build existence. Idealism recognises subjectivity as equal in importance to objectivity. It would be a contradiction to exclude subjectivity.

Metaphysical logic can only be used to explain absolute phenomena. It is not a tool for mundane matters like new devices to open cans.

I. The first synthesis identifies Truth in appearances. It concerns capitalism—socialism.

The gathering-in of Truth occurs (1) through political ideology and (2) the transcendence of ideology. Every ideology rests its case on some bit of the political economic whole. A second utility of ideologies is their combination with values. The Truth of political economy is found by eschewing ethics and values, which makes transcendence distinctly different from dialectic thinking.

How deeply buried logic is, is not appreciable until logic explains Einstein’s Special Relativity. Logic also underpins Kant’s explanation for cognition in his “Critique of Pure Reason”. Kant and Einstein are towering intellects whose genius happens to be joined by metaphysical logic. Objectivity obstructs recognition of what is Truly sublime in their achievements.

II. The second synthesis builds immanence. It concerns Individual Mind—National Mind.

Immanence is logically simple. The two big clues are extrapolated into what Hegel called Objective Mind for a universal political system and Subjective Mind for a description of our essential being. I have different names, i.e. National Mind and Individual Mind respectively. Logic decrees that objectivity as politics and subjectivity as psychology connect as reciprocal systems.

National Mind is the conditions for civil society. Individual Mind is basic human nature. The metaphysical lines of “social inherence” [inseparableness from society] are drawn with Mind as the common denominator. Society has been the objectification of human nature from the very first polity.

III. The third synthesis is the creative cause. It concerns logos—Absolute Mind.

The creative cause is an interaction between the logos and Absolute Mind. The logos is latent Mind. Absolute Mind is the universe. Thus creation is a dynamic involving unmanifested—manifested / latent—realised. An everyday analogue of this mighty dichotomy is seed—fruit.

With Mind at the core of the creative cause, individuality and the nation, Mind is the essence all things metaphysical. This makes ontology the most vital branch of philosophy. Under the aegis of ontology, are combined Truth in politics, psychology and religion.


In the war with duality, three aspects have to be defeated: ethics, monism [God as creator] and religion as faith. Ontology sees a few victories over ethics, including the fact that creation is not about forces of good and evil. Monism is overturned by the dichotomous explanation for the creative cause. This rationalisation replaces God. Religion as faith is replaced by knowledge of the logos. Esoteric religion remains; it has always been and remains an ally of metaphysics. Duality is essentially finished once ontology is defined – a final showdown with ethics waits to the last chapter. With logic benefiting from these manoeuvres, the war is totally removed from opinions and is more like a coup.

Consider what a philosophical revolution amounts to. Dualistic philosophy, in descending order goes something like: ethics, empiricism [so called logic], epistemology, mind [with a little ‘m’], and then the rest. After metaphysics rescues logic, the hierarchy becomes: metaphysics as ontology [politics, psychology, religion] and teleology [history] then empirical studies. As the Man who incarnated the logos said, “The first will come last and the last will come first”.

I cannot prove Mind, you cannot disprove Mind, but the superior sense of Mind becomes obvious is two ways:
1. Ontology is about being and we are primarily social beings. The basis for our identity as social beings lies in the interrelationship between Individual Mind and National Mind.
2. The immediate ramification of immanence is rational knowledge of the creative cause, and this knowledge is superior to what exoteric [faith-based] religion would have you believe. Will we have religious problems in the future? Perhaps not, but we are certain to have a problem of recalcitrant denial.

The above outlines how logic is found in appearances, logic oversees the construction of immanence and how logic finds the logos to become reconciled with its etymological root.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Leyla Shen »

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.
jupiviv: If that were true, then the material world is itself a reflection of the human mind since in the case of this assertion its reflection upon the human mind takes the form of itself as a reflection upon the human mind.
Well, no, since, as has been stated, what is being translated (that’s a key word, which you have had to leave out) into a form of thought, in this case an assertion, is the reflection not the form of thought.

Don’t you bloody start!
Meanwhile, *everyone* ignores the one thing that Marx (and all of the classical economists before him) got absolutely right - debt is not money, and neither is the power not to pay off debt without suffering the consequences.
Well, it's an exaggeration but so close to the truth I do actually agree with you.
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 »

At least, I sure hope you're not going to argue that every reflection is necessarily an assertion.
Between Suicides
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:
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.
jupiviv: If that were true, then the material world is itself a reflection of the human mind since in the case of this assertion its reflection upon the human mind takes the form of itself as a reflection upon the human mind.
Well, no, since, as has been stated, what is being translated (that’s a key word, which you have had to leave out) into a form of thought, in this case an assertion, is the reflection not the form of thought.
It all boils down to trying to *realise* reality either by imagining appearances of appearances or "real" things (which is itself an appearance). A product of our evolution - since we are designed to either have sex with, eat, destroy or ignore anything we encounter. Appearance as illusion - mind rapes matter because matter enjoys it. Appearance as real things - matter rapes mind because mind was asking for it.
Meanwhile, *everyone* ignores the one thing that Marx (and all of the classical economists before him) got absolutely right - debt is not money, and neither is the power not to pay off debt without suffering the consequences.
Well, it's an exaggeration but so close to the truth I do actually agree with you.
If you're referring to the "everyone" bit, it was indeed an exaggeration.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Leyla. Hello jupiviv. Welcome. I see you and Leyla have dragged something in that is going on between you two. I will pick out the bits in your posts I know something about.

After people have had a chance to digest my ontology, I will ‘prove’ that materialism and Idealism are not opposites. Marx’s dialectic is not the opposite of Idealism’s logic because logic is more profound. I am careful about claiming ‘proof’, but I can prove that logic is not comparable to dialectic. The rest of Marx’s assert in Leyla’s quote demonstrates Marx’s ignorance of Idealism.

Regarding your second quote, re. “… the material world is … a reflection of the human mind …”. In this Topic consciousness is relevant only in-so-far-as it has logical / absolute relevance and this opinion is going no-where. Individual Mind is not ‘reflected’ in the nation. It is ‘repeated’ as a reciprocal in the nation. ‘Reflected’ is not the best adjective. Your reflection is not your reciprocal. And to say our personal minds ‘reflect’ appearances does not do justice to the process of cognition.

Appearances are not illusions. They are a fabulous muddle. Received concepts: ethics and truth, are the cause of illusions. Jupiviv, you figuratively mention rape twice. The absolute perspective on rape is in my book.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Rod wrote:Appearances are not illusions. They are a fabulous muddle. Received concepts: ethics and truth, are the cause of illusions.
It's unclear how you'd distinguish between illusion and muddle. It's both referring to some state of confusion and unclarity. To arrive at such observation the ideal of "non-confused" and clarity needs to be introduced. While I respect bold assertions, these seem to muddle and confuse more than clarify anything.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Here is that divide again, Diebert: objectivity as opposed to seeing the whole. Objectively you are correct. But appearances are the result of a metaphysical process that is incredible. I claim to know the process and I am astounded by the outcome, disasters, mistakes and all. That is the only way it can be and relief does not lie in objectivity.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Diebert, here is a better answer. Though present in pieces, there are absolute Truths in appearances that cannot be disowned with a blanket declaration that appearances are illusions. Hence a 'magnificent muddle' fits the bill.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

This post applies metaphysical logic to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. The logic of the Special Theory pertains to a dimension deeper than empirical knowledge of the phenomena. It makes sense of weird changes at high speed. In a tailpiece the difference between materialism and Idealism is delineated.

Here is the definition of logic: subjective events countervail objective event between existential reciprocals.

The following is lifted from my book, Absolute Truth. Please note how brief and incisive the logical explanation is relative to the following discussion that deals with perceptions, received ideas and deceit in the case of Marxism. The logical ‘bones’ of a situation are amazingly concise.

In brief, the Special Theory of Relativity states:
1. A moving object measures shorter in its direction of motion as its velocity increases.
2. The mass of a moving object measures more as its velocity increases.
3. A moving clock runs more slowly as its velocity increases.

The logic of the Special Theory is that objective increases are accompanied by countervailing subjective decreases. Facts [1] and [3] above apply to measuring rods [distance] and clocks [time]. Distance and time are subjective quantities. It is logical that these subjective quantities should decrease while mass [objective quantity] increases with velocity.

And that is the logic of Special Relativity. Perhaps with some clarification as to what constitutes a subjective quantity the above analysis will become clearer. Objective quantities can be put in the hand, touched or objectively verified. Subjective quantities are intangibles that the mind contributes. The figure “zero” is a subjective quantity. It is not commonly known that time and distance are subjective quantities. Time is an interval. An interval cannot be taken hold of. A watch can rest in the hand, but a watch is not an interval. It is metal, glass or plastic. Twenty-four hours in a day, sixty minutes in an hour are universal conventions. With regards to distance, a short stick and a long stick are both wood so far as their objective properties are concerned. The units that describe the difference between long and short are subjective universal conventions.

The strange things that happen under the unique conditions of the Special Theory are less strange when it is appreciated that subjectivity and objectivity interplay at an abstract level beyond science. As for the pertinent reciprocals, they are the observer and the observed. Always there are objective stimuli and subjective a priori in an interaction between an observer and the observed. The Special Theory of Relativity makes the interaction more fascinating. The resolution of political economy has the same logic as the Special Theory of Relativity. These two examples of logic illustrate the degree of abstraction that pertains to immanence, its subtlety, scale and remove from empiricism.

The Relativity of Relativity
From the above Idealism takes scientific endorsement for logic, but for empiricism logic is not objective and the accord is a coincidence. Empiricists demanded “scientific” proof for metaphysics and the above demonstrates Idealism is not evasive, however ‘scientific endorsement’ is not ‘objective proof’ for the pedantic.

Idealism can make the Special Theory intelligible and it can declare the Special Theory an absolute Truth, but strictly science is not satisfied. Science seeks objective truth and it does not see an objective truth. For science it is ‘eccentric’ of Idealism to address the Special Theory with its prescription for universal order. Science cannot verify immanence, so logic’s interpretation of the Special Theory cannot be accepted. Science avoids committing to whether the Special Theory was made intelligible. Thus science cannot get to the root of relativity, cannot conceive of ideas greater than truth and proof and cannot inquire into creation – science cannot recognise the existential. The logic of Special Relativity is a further analysis of the data and it explains a deeper cause, but science has its rules of valid inference. There is comeuppance here. Scientists like to ask hard questions of the religious. Now it is getting some of its own medicine. By staying true to its precepts science is evasive.

This is an auspicious moment. Science is supposed to accept the simplest and most precise explanation for a phenomenon and empiricism has disallowed a clarification on the basis of its limitations [with subjectivity]. The root of the problem is duality’s inadequacy with synthetic a priori. Logic explains Special Relativity with a synthetic a priori.

Here ends the lift-out.

This will be the readers’ first example of absolute Truth. Understanding political Truth is a richer experience because they cut through subjects laden with values.

Karl Marx converted G W F Hegel’s dialectical movement into dialectic materialism to create a myth about the inevitability of communist succession. Marx claimed his materialist interpretation of Hegel’s Idea of political succession was scientific. No proof exists, but it gave communists confidence and in communist countries it was built up to socialist Truth proportions. Marx’s conversion committed two errors: it corrupted the Idealist synthesis and it supposes Ideas were equitable to science. So what is the relevance of dialectic materialism to the Special Theory? The logic of the Special Theory exposes the pretension that is dialectic materialism by demonstrating that Idealism operates at a deeper level than science. The Special Truth distinguishes truth from Truth and concludes Ideas are not comparable to science truth

Consequently, Marx’s manipulation is neither fish nor fowl. He did not understand Idealism. He had no respect for truth. He cobbled ideas to fit his conviction. Ironically this disproof of Marxism comes from a viewpoint beyond proof. That is the nature of the categories involved.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Rod wrote:Here is that divide again, Diebert: objectivity as opposed to seeing the whole. Objectively you are correct. But appearances are the result of a metaphysical process that is incredible. I claim to know the process and I am astounded by the outcome, disasters, mistakes and all. That is the only way it can be and relief does not lie in objectivity.
This reply looks a bit strange to me as I was not pushing for any assumed objectivity. Just highlighting a potential contradiction for you to explain. Claiming to know a "process" in its intimate details sounds to me like a subject revelling in some object, no matter how grand, complex, intriguing and majestic this über-object might appear as to any subjective "I". Especially when it proves so hard to convey: this can be evidence of a highly subjective component. Which is to me perfectly fine and understood.
Rod wrote:Diebert, here is a better answer. Though present in pieces, there are absolute Truths in appearances that cannot be disowned with a blanket declaration that appearances are illusions. Hence a 'magnificent muddle' fits the bill.
The question is why any declaration on illusions would appear to you as dismissive. Aren't you filling in the blanks here? I'm pretty sure I'm not dismissing anything, just preferring some reasonable, measured and proportional approach over muddled, contradicting, chaotic or emotion-ridden attempts. Of course as far as discussions on text-based message boards go, which are a rather abstract places, full of mirrors and verbal trapdoors.

As a side-note, I just started to review the first posts and links in this thread, so I might supply more feedback on your reasoning on "metaphysical essences preceding appearances & existence" in future posts. It seems worthwhile as a topic but a real critique would perhaps require writing a whole book :)
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

This essay is a companion-piece to the essay on the logic of Special Relativity. It reveals the logic that underlies I. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The landmark work of Einstein and Kant share the same logic.

The definition of logic: subjective events countervail objective events between existential reciprocals.

Again the logic is brief, the commentary is long, it is beyond proof, but it makes sense.

The following is lifted from Chapter Three of my book: Absolute Truth.

I must explain how Kant came to his denial of metaphysics. David Hume [1711 – 76] had painted philosophy into a corner with an empirical search for what knowledge is, based on observable causes such as a hammer hitting a nail. He concluded that there was no basis for certainty of knowledge for observed events; knowledge is acquired through experience and supposition. Between say fire and heat, no causal link exists independent of our imagination; we know fire causes heat, but what is the link and is it constant? Hume reasoned philosophy is incapable of discovering the truth about any matter. Knowledge should be left to scientists to collect; there is nothing that a philosopher is better equipped to discover. This conclusion worried Hume, but there it was. To rescue philosophy from Hume's radical scepticism, Kant produced an explanation for the cognitive process that added subjective faculties to what experience provided, meaning knowledge gathering relies upon a priori concepts supplied by the faculties. In other words, cognition depends upon subjective a priori recognising objective stimuli. The premise of Kant's Critique can be précised in a sentence: knowledge results from stimuli being acknowledged with a priori concepts supplied by the mind. Add the fact that there is an observer and the observed and Kant had answered Hume with a dichotomous explanation that included ‘subjectivity + objectivity’. The unchanging context for cognition lay in the dichotomous relationship. Kant’s reply to Hume was entirely metaphysical.

Kant's Critique resolved the impasse presented by Hume's radical scepticism. Kant then investigated a priori concepts to see if they could give rise to metaphysical ideas. All the a priori concepts Kant could conceive of gave no hint of immanence. Kant therefore believed we possess no concepts with which to reason beyond experience, however … his study of categories of knowledge suggested metaphysics was possible if synthetic a priori existed. Kant wanted to believe metaphysics was possible but he could not see beyond its theoretical possibility. With dualistic reasoning limited to appearances, Kant joined Hume in concluding that a realm of absolute forms / Ideas was without foundation. It seemed that metaphysics had been denied both appearances and the psyche, thereby making its ability to contribute to philosophy and reason in general, suspect.

The Logic of the Critique

The two-dimensional dichotomy pertaining to the Critique is the observer and the observed. From the observed, the observer receives stimuli. This is the objective event. The observer projects a priori concepts at the observed. This is the subjective event. Via this objective and subjective exchange we acquire knowledge.

Knowledge results from stimuli we receive and the concepts supplied by the mind. It means objectivity in, subjectivity out, between observer and observed: the logic of the Critique. Kant had no reason to look deeper into this relationship – he had nothing to relate it to – but that is how close he was to answering his own question about the possibility of synthetic a priori.

“Objectivity in, subjectivity out, between observer and observed” is a stark expression of logical interaction. The Truth of Cognition was too brief for its elements to be abstracted and related to other phenomena and there was no similar phenomenon for Kant to compare his answer with. There is logical constancy in the way knowledge is gathered but there is no certainty about the knowledge gathered. Certainty was covered in the discussion on scepticism in Chapter One.

Because Kant’s reply to Hume left metaphysical questions unanswered, it was interpreted as anti-metaphysical and classified as rationalism. Academic rationalism is some half-way house between metaphysics and empiricism where pure reason can perform non-metaphysical feats. The difference between rationalism and metaphysics is the difference between deduction and synthesis; objective subtraction and subjective addition, respectively. A rationalist conclusion is objectively subtracted from a premise. In metaphysical reasoning the conclusion involves reciprocals plus subjective input. Kant added a priori concepts to objective stimuli – he did not objectively prove there are such mental concepts – and he performed a synthesis. Because he was dealing with objective experience and not immanent constructs he had no problem adding analytical a priori concepts to his explanation for cognition as direct causation. In metaphysical reasoning the thinker must contribute something from their imagination. This returns us to the discussion in Chapter One under The Relativity of Relativity where it was acknowledged that an objectivist need not agree that logic incisively explains Special Relativity because logic has a subjective component. However, the objectivist is left living a life of denial since we are all constantly adding a priori concepts to events in our daily lives.

Kant joined the rationalists because of the inability to appreciate how profound his reply was. The Critique is non-dualistic. It does not involve values, so it failed to challenge duality. When subjective and objective interaction is more important than values, consciousness has undergone a revolution. Applying logic to the Critique makes an ally of a famous critic of metaphysics who would have been happy to be counted as a metaphysician. The Critique is recognised as philosophy’s greatest success and since it is consistent with logic, dualistic philosophy is deprived of this landmark achievement in philosophy.

Here ends the lift out

What makes the “Critique” absolute? It happens to have the features that constitute logic. Fittingly it demonstrates that the Absolute is as intimate as cognition and not God in a distant heaven. Again we see logic is an abstract dimension removed from abstractions about phenomena. This will help readers to appreciate the degree of separation from appearances that Idealists seek to be familiar with immanence.

It is beyond coincidence that the ideas of two intellectual giants should share a precise and obscure logic. Einstein did not wonder whether his insight was comparable to Kant’s, but he may have thought he was on his own in his abstractions. With two examples of logic pertaining to genii we now have clear evidence that in the deepest reaches of creation subjectivity is every bit as important as objectivity and we cannot do without subjectivity. The other parameter in both examples, i.e. observer and observed, are not a dynamic duo, but they do explain what mystics mean by “You are that”. The big picture of cognition joins the participants.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Thank you Rod for your well thought out life of work.

Namaste and maranatha
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

I am aware a sceptic came knocking [pun intended] recently. I am up for a bit of sport, sceptics are a favourite target and Seeker exposed too much of himself above the parapet.

SeekerOfWisdom said this:
Rod, I think you appear idiotic.

A ways to go. But it's no trouble =)
I can handle being called an idiot. It is the unsubstantiated nature of the insult that causes offence. The logic of two absolute Truths deems Seeker a Proven Idiot. The onus is on him to deny either one if he wants to rescue his reputation.

If Seeker was a seeker of wisdom, after contemplation of the logic of the Special Theory, he could have asked, “What is the logic of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity?”

Unsubstantiated scepticism is arrogance and on this unique occasion unsubstantiated scepticism is unacceptable. Insistence on scientific support for metaphysics goes back to David Hume [1711 - 76]. The logic of the Special Theory of Relativity is scientific substantiation for metaphysics, so numb-nuts has demonstrated ignorance of philosophic history and exhibited disrespect for a landmark in the war between empiricism and metaphysics.

Seeker epitomises the disconnect between the study necessary to do radical metaphysics and the confidence of the idle to do philosophy and pronounce on metaphysics. I guess some are over-excited by ‘the Absolute’ as a topic. Others are convinced metaphysics is a delusion.

Esoteric theory follows in the near future.

Thank you beingof1.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

This essay outlines the Methodology of Non-duality, a much speculated-on consciousness.

The essay is esoteric, meaning it is about knowledge beyond readers’ experience. I urge readers to access my metaphysic, Absolute Truth at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974 The first 20% of the ebook is free.

Bear with me and I will explain the feature of objective truth that makes Genius Forums eventually disappointing for contributors. Genius Forums is committed to existential topics and objectivity cannot be conclusive about anything existential. I will outline the metaphysics of this failing.

Every tradition and every would-be philosopher wants to do philosophy in a new way but for absolute Idealism the imperative is totally radical. It seeks to restarts philosophy with real logic. Two methodological features stem from real logic: existential dichotomies and diagrams with dimension.

Logic dictates that only existential dichotomies can be absolute and necessity dictates the use of diagrams to convey absolute Ideas. Diagrams that convey Ideas impart dimension.

In my ontology essay I introduced existential dichotomies: male—female, capitalism—socialism, Individual Mind—National Mind, Absolute Mind—logos and fruit—seed. Additional dichotomies include ontology—teleology, observer—observed and mind—body.

All of the above dichotomies are without antitheses. For example, what is the opposite of male—female, capitalism—socialism, etc. [Do not offer male—male and female—female and expect to be taken seriously. The qualifier is “existential”.] There are no antitheses to the above and this is why existential dichotomies alone are absolute.

Dichotomies are complete and immanent dichotomies are connected. The problem has been identifying the immanent dichotomies that constitute 3-dimensional Mind.

Logic employs two dichotomies, simultaneously, so logic is busy. A Truth has to be explained in one statement and the only means to achieve this is to assemble the components on a diagram. Absolute Truths begin with two dimensions. Three-dimensional Individual Mind is busy as the enabler of consciousness. Individual Mind—National Mind is pregnant with ramifications and the ‘participants’ have to be delivered in a single statement. Culture is four-dimensions. The need to present all ‘actors’ occasions an innovation: diagrams.

Ontology must be presented on diagrams. The bare bones of ontology are cubic configurations expressing aspects of Mind. Each cube conveys 3-dimensional relationships. These Ideas are amazingly austere. Significant commentary goes into explaining ontology but ultimately the retained Ideas are thread-bare diagrams.

As a 4-dimensional Idea, culture deserves elaboration. Culture is described by National Mind—teleology. That means a nation is appraised by it social order and history. Social order involves 3-dimensions and teleology is more than 1-dimensional, but is not 2-dimensional. It is sufficient to demarcate teleology as 1-dimensional and thus deem the metaphysics for National Mind—teleology is 4-dimensional.

Aside from being the only way to present absolutes, diagrams void the pitfall that is ‘the subject’. A sentence has a subject and predicate, and ordinary truth has a subject. Absolutes have no subject. The avoidance of sentences [to make absolute statements in the first instance] by the employment of diagrams avoids creating a subject where there is no subject.

None of the diagrams for absolutes feature a subject. This allows persons who can comprehend logical diagrams, to also perceive the all-pervading void.

Logic sets definitive Idealism in concrete. Logical stipulations constitute a methodology. Like appearances, Ideas have dimension and that constitutes a new way of doing philosophy.

Has anyone tried to assemble an absolute Truth out of truths? There is always the prospect of an unexpected, inconvenient truth coming along to wreck the endeavour. Communism was an attempt to be politically absolute. Catholicism and Islam consider themselves absolute. These ideologies and religions would not / will not entertain contrary viewpoints. The nature of truth is the fatal flaw in combination with illusions about goodness.

When truths are collected, they ‘mill-around’ because coherence and connection are not attributes of truth. Collected truths are no more than “a case / an argument / a contention”. They lack existential conclusiveness. This point is illuminated by the question, “What is civil society?” There is no objective answer. The answer is metaphysical. It abounds in relationships and connections, which are removed from objective perception.

The “fault, dear Brutus” with objective truths is that they are one dimensional “underlings”. Their impoverished nature means they cannot access Ideas and dimension. Since culture is 4-dimensional it is entirely understandable that 1-dimensional truth cannot grasp culture. When truth fails, dualists employ something more objectionable: ethics. As I have said, ethics has no foundations.

Since duality is only and always 1-dimensional, this fact affirms the popular conviction that truth is relative, which begs the question, “Relative in what?” “What are the parameters to which truth is a shuttlecock?” Objectivity cannot grasp the parameters of anything existential. Existential parameters are reciprocals, not truths, and thus there is no connection, no point of contact, nothing in common. This means that civilised discussion between earnest participants finishes up going around and around. Objective truths will be strewn through-out the conversation and then eventually someone will ask, “Are we missing something here?” – Yes, a metaphysical overview.

Knowledge is gained by contrast. The nature of objective truth is comprehended by knowledge of metaphysical Truth. And here is the rub: metaphysical Truth does not have to be proven for knowledge to be gained about the nature of objectivity. A different system of reasoning is required to cast a light on the received way of reasoning, and that can only happen with a complete departure starting with logic. Different logic means different attributes: no meaning or proof, but instead connection and synthesis. Absolute Truths reveal duality is woefully inadequate to answer existential questions. And when attention turns to which logic is real, there is no argument!
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Hello Rod and once again, thank you for your lifes work. I can only cherry pick as this thing called life gets in the way.
Absolutes have no subject. The avoidance of sentences [to make absolute statements in the first instance] by the employment of diagrams avoids creating a subject where there is no subject.
I agree diagrams are door opening and bubble popping for rvealing the nonexistence of an absolute as subject but you eventually result in the stubborn dichotomy, that of subject and object for someone must be holding this conceptual image by limit.

As an example of an infinite set is a logorythmic spiral. The measurement across the span is finite but the limit explodes into the infinite in both directions (outward and inward). The entire infinite set may be held in the mind as a concept but it eventually ends one way or another. The mind no longer entertains the concept or the limit 'bottoms out' at Pi.

Logic sets definitive Idealism in concrete. Logical stipulations constitute a methodology. Like appearances, Ideas have dimension and that constitutes a new way of doing philosophy.
It does indeed and it has recently been harnessed by science. The empty set was finally introduced (by mt urging as well as others) as superposition and resulted in quantum claculation.
Has anyone tried to assemble an absolute Truth out of truths? There is always the prospect of an unexpected, inconvenient truth coming along to wreck the endeavour.
Yes I have. Let me know if you see any wiggle room?

1. All things are finite as they are clearly identified by what they are *not* (~).
2. All things have a boundary or limit.
3. All things are contained by what they are *not* (~).
4. All things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means.
5. The Container of all things is beyond measurement as there is not a correlate.
6. All things are contained by an infinite set.
7. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement.
8. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not.
9. All things contained by the infinite are caused by the infinite.
10.All things contained in the infinite are in motion through cause and effect.
11.There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.
12.All possible worlds are true.

The end result is all worlds are perceived by consciousness - a metaphysical answer

When truths are collected, they ‘mill-around’ because coherence and connection are not attributes of truth. Collected truths are no more than “a case / an argument / a contention”. They lack existential conclusiveness. This point is illuminated by the question, “What is civil society?” There is no objective answer. The answer is metaphysical. It abounds in relationships and connections, which are removed from objective perception.
Well stated
Since duality is only and always 1-dimensional, this fact affirms the popular conviction that truth is relative, which begs the question, “Relative in what?” “What are the parameters to which truth is a shuttlecock?” Objectivity cannot grasp the parameters of anything existential. Existential parameters are reciprocals, not truths, and thus there is no connection, no point of contact, nothing in common. This means that civilised discussion between earnest participants finishes up going around and around. Objective truths will be strewn through-out the conversation and then eventually someone will ask, “Are we missing something here?” – Yes, a metaphysical overview.
Indeed - consciousness is the prime
Different logic means different attributes: no meaning or proof, but instead connection and synthesis. Absolute Truths reveal duality is woefully inadequate to answer existential questions. And when attention turns to which logic is real, there is no argument!
That which is absolute is a tautology. It is so simple it is hard to understand becasue it is so very simple.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hello Being and Russell

I think we make a triangle of views. Being, you seem to both understand metaphysics and not understand. The quotes you made indicate you understand, but your question indicates that you do not. My impression is that you are a mathematician who wants to make a détente / rapport with metaphysics. Maths is connected to empiricism. Metaphysics does not employ maths. There cannot be rapport with maths. Logic is at stake and maths does not employ real logic.

In regards to your list, 1 – 3 seem objectively correct. 4 is a No because immanence cannot be measured. 5 & 6 are beyond my knowing, but somehow infinite turns back. 7. I am confident the Absolute and infinity are not identical, because infinity is an objective state and the Absolute underpins all that is objective. 8. seems correct. 9. The infinite is not a cause and it is not self generating. 10. seems probable. 11 ? No idea. 12. Not metaphysics.

And then you say:
The end result is all worlds are perceived by consciousness - a metaphysical answer
The list and this conclusion is not metaphysics. Infinity is a challenging concept for metaphysics, but your propositions are not reaching for deep causation.

Finally you state:
That which is absolute is a tautology. It is so simple it is hard to understand becasue it is so very simple.
Hardly!

Russell thanks for simply stating you don’t understand. Metaphysics is a deeper level of interpretation. I have taken two eminent theories and revealed they are capable of a deeper level of interpretation. Logic had to lie beyond the Special Theory because the Special Theory assumed an absolute perspective. The logic of Kant’s Critique though, was a case of it just sitting there waiting to be identified – nothing said it must have logical underpinnings. Logic and Truth are very austere, very abstract, hence very brief but the associated commentary tends to be lengthy.

I am too busy writing essays to follow other Topics. “Hegel’s Problem” was great while it lasted. I tried to help Pam but she won’t be open. What is going on between you two I don’t know.

Only a few can do original metaphysics, but that is no longer of concern. Idealism wants to overturn convention and its chance depends on time and developments. What I wonder is, what proportion of the philosophy-interested population can comprehend definitive metaphysics? Something strange might happen like more women than men will take to it. Anyway, logic in politics is easier than the two examples given and teleology [history] is dead-easy once you know what to look for in history. When all else fails begin with teleology [Chapter Four]. Everything will be back-to-front but determinism in history is amazing. With a bit of help from me you will see Hegel was telling the Truth and that’s amazing. My editor got excited about my project when he came to the teleology and we re-edited the ontology.

A point I reiterate is that I cannot prove Idealism but it is sensible. Next weekend there will be another esoteric essay that makes this point and the weekend after there will an essay explaining my metaphysical development. For the time being go to my ebook https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974
and download the 20% that is free. This free portion almost covers Chapter One. If you have any propensity for metaphysics you will discover it in Chapter One.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Rod:
I think we make a triangle of views. Being, you seem to both understand metaphysics and not understand. The quotes you made indicate you understand, but your question indicates that you do not. My impression is that you are a mathematician who wants to make a détente / rapport with metaphysics. Maths is connected to empiricism. Metaphysics does not employ maths. There cannot be rapport with maths. Logic is at stake and maths does not employ real logic.
I would say you do not understand mathematics. Hey, you introduced relativity and that is all about math.

Lets use your statement putting it in the framework of semantics, the logic of language (which is binary code as in zeros and ones):
You could say language is connected to empiricism and that metaphysics does not employ language. There cannot be rapport with language. Logic is at stake and language does not employ real logic.

Math is not a code to be broken, it is a very precise language. Mathematics is accurate concepts beyond semantics, which is the logic of langauge. Math is about ideas not codes.


Now the syllogism, which is a logical construct BTW:
In regards to your list, 1 – 3 seem objectively correct. 4 is a No because immanence cannot be measured.
1. All things are finite as they are clearly identified by what they are *not* (~).
2. All things have a boundary or limit.
3. All things are contained by what they are *not* (~).
4. All things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means

It does not matter that immanence cannot be measured as that is the entire point of the logical progression. If immanence cannot be measured , does that mean a cup cannot be measured? No, all cups and therefore all things can be measured, follow?

You are discounting the premise by arriving at the same conclusion as the premise leads to. Immanenece is dealt with at the proper time in the logical progression - look at it again. You do not discount a single point by saying this single point does not factor in all contingcies and is therefore invalid, that is a logical fallacy.

I only make the singular point that all things in the universe can be measured and that is universal and a logical neccesity.
5 & 6 are beyond my knowing, but somehow infinite turns back.
5. The Container of all things is beyond measurement as there is not a correlate.
6. All things are contained by an infinite set.

It is not beyond your knowing.

If every limit is transcended by the application of that limit then the infinite is by default. There is no other logical answer because you arrive at a singular non-correlate. If all limits have been transcended you arrive at the singularity.
7. I am confident the Absolute and infinity are not identical, because infinity is an objective state and the Absolute underpins all that is objective.
7. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement.

Absolute:
Not qualified or diminished in any way; total:

Infinite:
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate:

Could you draw a meaningful distinction?

9. The infinite is not a cause and it is not self generating.
9. All things contained by the infinite are caused by the infinite.

You cannot dismiss something without giving a reason for it.

My question would be, what caused the infinite? You must answer this question in order for your objection to be valid.

Second question, what else but the infinite contains cause and effect?
10. seems probable. 11 ? No idea.
10.All things contained in the infinite are in motion through cause and effect.
11.There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.

If all things are in motion - how could it possibly be otherwise than all things are in a constant state of flux?

12. Not metaphysics.

The list and this conclusion is not metaphysics. Infinity is a challenging concept for metaphysics, but your propositions are not reaching for deep causation.
12.All possible worlds are true.

If all possible worlds are true, can you show me a world that is not relevent to causation that is perceived?

That is as metaphysical as it gets. Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.

Stop being so dismissive please - there are other bright people in this world. It is a logical fallacy to dismiss a point without giving a logical reason why.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Being
The issue is in your first line.
I would say you do not understand mathematics. Hey, you introduced relativity and that is all about math.
It is yes and no. Relativity at the empirical level is all maths. Relativity at a metaphysical level does not involve maths.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Rod wrote:Hi Being
The issue is in your first line.
I would say you do not understand mathematics. Hey, you introduced relativity and that is all about math.
It is yes and no. Relativity at the empirical level is all maths. Relativity at a metaphysical level does not involve maths.
Rod,
Please excuse the briefness of this response.

Thanks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hello Being, I’ve been giving your stance some thought. There are two parts to my assessment of your position. Firstly, a reason why you cannot do metaphysics with maths – there is no subjective dimension in maths. It was the rigidly objective nature of maths that attracted Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead to try to construct philosophy on maths. The failure of the project is beyond the point. Russell was trying to get away from Hegelianism in particular and metaphysics in general and you are trying to do the opposite. [There’s a little intellectual joke.]

Secondly, I evaluate the aptitude of persons who comment for their capacity for metaphysics and you are an interesting case. You are earnest and have a keen sense of truth. You can see the truth in what I write, both in regards to metaphysics and empiricism. However, your ability to recognise the limitations of objective truth does not make you a metaphysician or capable of doing metaphysics. For example, Richard Rorty could see what was wrong with truth, but he was not a metaphysician.

When I write essays I am mostly writing around the subject and I am offering truths about Truths. I could be giving the wrong impression in my commentaries.

The apprenticeship for metaphysics is mysticism. There is very little metaphysics to be gleaned from academics. Hegel’s teleology is one of the few accessible examples. Modern academics who call themselves Idealism are really the spill over from analytical philosophy. They find tenure on the pretense they are filling out the philosophic spectrum. I am sure you have not investigated mysticism. I am certain our Russell has not gone anywhere near it. And while I’m in the area of philosophical ability, Seeker-the-non-seeker is so thick he thinks ad hominem is philosophy.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Russell: Unless I am very mistaken Ramakrishna down to his toenails and even including his fleas would have to be classified as a mystic of the first order. Zero analytics, zero 'reason', pure experience, pure faith/knowledge. I understand that what may interest you of him is his advaita declarations, but he is in my view a pure mystic example.
I talk, God speaks
Locked