Explicit Absolute Truths

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

If I am not mistaken Rod was riffing off of my name: Bjorn = bear.

However, Beingof1 is not responsible for the condition of my brain (hjarna).

As I said earlier, I have not been able to dedicate the time to a careful read of your exposition Rod. It takes a veritable time-commitment.

Where I do agree with Beingof1, as stated, is that language and logic seem to me, in many respects, to be structured in and to function mathematically. Additionally, and I think Whitehead may have said something to this effect (though it does not necessarily have bearing on your exposition): that the universe is sung in the language of mathematics. I understood Being to be saying that your exposition, if logical, would necessarily be structured by principles reducible mathematically. I take this to mean that we are *here* within the contingent, and the mutable, and the transitory, and are subject in most regards to its constraints. When we become conscious, we attempt to locate solidities and constants and to proceed from our conditionality toward universals and constants. It is as though this Idea is a life-preserver tossed to us and we must cling to it. That is the essence of what 'metaphysic' means to me.

If we use, say, our voice, we do so because we employ *vibration* to produce sound, even though (and this seems possible) the *thought*, the idea, the sentiment, and the truth or the Truth that we communicate, could be said to have its origin *outside* of those limitations: the limitations of the incarnate as it were. Vibration is 'mathematical' in this sense. Similarly, when we attempt to employ language to express Truth, we operate in reverse: we function within the mutable and shifting chaos, and sort of croak our thoughts through crude vibrations. Thus I have said something factually true but which is also allusive (and thus metaphysical, if I make my meaning clear).

What I have just expressed - certainly no great thought - expresses I think something fundamental about metaphysics as an idea. There seem to me to be mysteries there and I don't mean silliness-as-mystery, but mysteries about 'our incarnated state', or 'consciousness that manifests itself within the contingent and the mutable'. You have not been following other threads here (notably the conversations between myself and Russell) but much of what IS discussed here has to do with varying opinions/decisions about how one responds to the Absolute, and indeed what it means to posit Absoluteness. Basically, I think that we are called to define an absolute (metaphysic) and with that to apply it - essentially - in the domain of the political. Quite literally, in accord with Platonism, to 'the polis'. If a converation spins too far away from this focus, I consider it a wasted effort. Or perhaps a kind of mistaken effort.

So, once again I am interested by what you wrote: that the more interesting area is politics. Yet this would not negate empirical mathematics either. (But deciding such things is not my domain by any means).

I fully admit that I have a rather tendentious grasp of *metaphysics*, or perhaps it is best to say a partial one. Yet it is organic and has integrity. Right now, and essentially, I use my metaphysical grasp as a tool to analyse idea-platforms. I used the term 'core predicates' in a post to Russell but he did not quite get what I meant and that is because he does not grasp my particular concept of metaphysics.

As much as I might appreciate your understanding of metaphysics I find your exposition to be expressed in something akin to philosophese. It is my own view that, your essays and book aside, it would be helpful if you could elucidate the relationship between metaphysics and politics in concrete examples.

(I don't mind at all jibes, semi-insults, jokes, or even outrightly offensive jabs, from you or anyone, and I simply disregard them. They always seem to occur in this space (this forum) and I just take it as par for the course. I understand that your main reason here is to promote your book. Yet the space that you have entered is one of various people who have been engaged in *conversation* for a long time.)
I talk, God speaks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Gustav. “A bear of little brain” is a quote from Winnie the Pooh. I believe Winnie says it of himself. In the spirit of A. A. Milne it should be said with affection. In the circumstances you got rough affection.

Your congenial nature lead to the shit-storm that broke over your head. Because you could win medals for Sweden, or where-ever, in the combined disciplines of Naivety & Niceness I had better explain some things. You last is a good post by the way.

The dispute was over territory. Being wanted to park his thread-bare, absolute ideas on my Topic. Two differing version of the Absolute on one thread is firstly ridiculous, secondly intolerable and thirdly obscene if not corrected. I asked him to start a Topic of his own and he refused. The warning came with humour, re. Churchill, and a note to yourself. You merrily pursued your metaphysical interest as outlined above and Being was only too happy to be consulted, and take me on, so a sorting out followed. You were the catalyst for the inevitable.

Try to get your interest together with another Topic, but it is not my number.

For logic and politics, go to my ebook https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974 and you will find 20% is free. That covers a good chunk of politics. Politics is where definitive Idealism finds its feet, Truth and logic.

As for your gripe:
I find your exposition to be expressed in something akin to philosophese.


OK, but technical-ese cannot be avoided. You should find that familiarity with my style of presenting ideas comes easier as the metaphysic progresses. At least it is nothing like Hegelian prose.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Rod:
Being, I see that you have drawn me onto your favoured ground for argument: Maths.
Now I am positive, you are incapable of comprehending what anyone else is saying.

Your comprehension skills regarding what others are saying or meaning are nonexistent.

No matter how many times I repeat something including the caps lock on - it just goes in one ear and out the other with no resistence for processing at all.

You believe, at this point, that using words like logic and absolute - you actually know what they mean.


You suggest using diagrams and you think that does not involve mathematics. All I can say is Wow and double Wow.
My preferred grounds are politics, which are far more complex.
Gee golly wiz, I have only studied politics, history, military and economic geopolitical scenarios since I was 12. I even had a job at one time developing scenarios. Right now I am brushing up on Napoleonic geopolitical scenarios as well as Rome and its parreallel to the United states and oh yeah - the Shogunite wars. Yup - I know about Putin and everything.

Sorry I interupted your diatribe at how brillaint you are - we wait with baited breath.

You have no idea because you are still having trouble finding the escape hatch that leads outside of your head.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Russell and Being

These posts are off Topic.

Go away.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Preamble: I capitalise the “I” of Idealism to avoid confusion with moral idealism. Similarly I capitalise “T” for absolute Truth to avoid confusion with objective truth, and “I” for transcendent Idea. “R” for the Reason of the creation cause and “M” for the Mind behind appearances.

For definitions of Idealism it is crucial that Mind is distinct from personal mind.
Here are three definitions of Idealism:

1. The view that Mind is the basic reality.
2. The physical world exists as an expression of Mind.
3. The physical world is mental in its inner essence.

Were the above definitions to be written with ‘mind’, as I have seen, the above is horribly confused. Our personal minds are not behind creation.

This essay puts some meat on the bones of the above definitions of Idealism. The subject is “Mind and its Virtues”. This overview of the components of Mind reveals how accessible the Absolute is.

In the systematising of Mind a transition occurs between the second and third syntheses. My second synthesis is Individual Mind—National Mind. It is the pivotal association of the whole metaphysic. Therein, subjective and objective systems combine. The associations are so well drawn that the parameters of both systems turn out to be identical, and surprise, surprise, they are the four natural virtues. The reward for getting immanent Ideas right is the keys ideas to the third synthesis appearing of their own volition.

The natural virtues are virtues in the Platonic, pagan sense – not the moral sense. By name they are: justice, temperance, prudence [reason] and fortitude [enterprise]. My interpretations are in parentheses.

The third synthesis unveils the creative cause. Because it was unexpected and the magnitude of the revelation is so far reaching, the transition that facilitated it is ‘magical’, if not mystical. The third synthesis validates the logic premised at the beginning of the metaphysic and takes Idealism into esoteric religion.

The resurrection of the natural virtues has big implications. Firstly, “What did the Stoics know?” Secondly, esoteric ideas are comprehensible because the nature virtues are familiar ideas. Thirdly, implicit is the connotation that the logos consists of the four natural virtues. If the logos, logic and the four virtues are known, philosophic and religious change is inevitable.

The Stoics emphasised the four natural virtues. Their metaphysics are lost and therefore we do not know if the virtues were metaphysically interpreted differently from their ethics implications. Christians certainly picked up and swung [pun intended] on the ethical interpretation of the virtues.

Christianity joined the pagan virtues to the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity. They went to work on revamped the pagan virtues, calling them ‘cardinal’ [it means ‘hinge’] virtues, on account of other virtues being attached to them. As moral virtues, enormous attention was afforded the natural virtues.

Idealism’s recognition of the virtues as the foundations of Mind resurrects appreciation of the virtues. All ethical associations are rejected with the total rejection of ethics and the virtues are relaunched as integral to metaphysical system building. It would appear the four natural virtues were always meant to be understood metaphysically rather than ethically, but the conditions necessary to recognise their True nature did not exist in classical times.

The Absolute is the four natural virtues in different configurations. Revisiting the definitions presented at the beginning, Idealism is:

1. The view that the four natural virtues are basic to reality.
2. The physical world exists as an expression of the four natural virtues.
3. The physical world is mental in its inner essence in accordance with the natural virtues being foundational.

The above over-emphasises the four virtues. I am doing it to make the original definitions more believable. To understand the Absolute one needs to know in detail all the dichotomies previously listed in my last essay. I truncate to virtues to aid awareness that the rationalised Absolute is a sensible doctrine built on familiar concepts.

A mystic in antiquity identified the four virtues. Plato made them immortal. The Stoics made them significant, no doubt helping the wrong turn that allied the virtues with ethics. But at least they survived, and I have revitalised them as metaphysical essences. They are attractive ideas because they have numinous appeal.

The following explains the ‘mystical’ transition from reciprocals to virtues as due to objectivity—subjectivity being closely coordinated.

Definitive Idealism has to declare what is given and unknowable, and what are essences. Givens comprise energy and consciousness. They are always together and are the reason why objectivity and subjectivity are fundamental. Energy and consciousness generate the four natural virtues. Since reason is a scion of the givens we cannot know the origin of the givens. This knowledge is sourced from knowledge of the logos, aided by a model of the logos.

The unprompted emergence of the virtues after sensitive juxtapositioning of objective and subjective ‘actors’ is consistent with “being in touch” with immanent objectivity—subjectivity. The transition from dichotomies to virtues could not be engineered and subsequently I found my rational way to the logos as a result of a development inherent to appreciation of the bonds between objectivity—subjectivity.

This exposition on Mind has broached a subject conventional philosophy never imagined being within the realm of reason. It is necessary to know Mind to realise absolute philosophy and this was possible with the methodology previously outlined. There are two messages in this expose: the natural virtues have emerged to assume new significance, and, consistency across politics, psychology and mysticism achieves the validation of the premised logic.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

People, it should be clear that this thread is about discussing Rod's views and work. Discussing here all other possible topics and various views of your own, unless directly as response to Ron's ideas, would start to defy the purpose of having this particual topic at all. Focus is important in thought. For that reason I might move posts out of this topic to a new one if they continue to demonstrate this small misunderstanding on the meaning of the word "topic". Also any discussion on this request itself cannot happen here. It can of course happen in PM to me or in the Helpdesk.
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, I do have some questions on your work but I'm not sure yet where to start. Perhaps anything will do, and I'll begin with just some statement you made in the first free secton of the book which stood out the most after reading it a few times.
  • "Central to life is Mind: the organising principle that confers complexity. "
Are you realizing how compatible this view is with for example the general Christian views, at least those who see a transcendental God? It's how I read this, since "mind' associates with a more personalized, humanized force, perhaps a bit Spinozian, pan-theist? My main question though is that I don't see much explanation of this organising principle. It seems a-priori, like the axiom of your philosophy. Instead of "existence exists" we'd have "principle principles". Picking this sentence further apart I'd question the verb "is", in what way does a fundamental principle reside? It turns the question back to the question of
existence and its meaning. Which brings me what you say on "absolute idealism":
  • "appearances follow Ideas. "
That only seems to work if those ideas consists of or are centred about and around a principle on "existence"... which is already done by existentialism, as you know, which is for that reason to me the more truthful philosophy or perhaps I should say "more fertile". To raise more ideas like "cognition" becomes then quickly unsustainable assertion. Existence itself, as idea, does not suffer that problem as it can be logically sustained. As for meaning the following you wrote is interesting:
  • Dichotomies are the only mechanism capable of being self-sustaining, creative causes.

    "They are meaning-free, proof-free, truth-free, prose-free and value-free because meaning, proof, truth, prose and value come after the act of creation."
Not free of those, but necessarily containing all meaning, proof and truth. My reason of stating it in that manner is that if it didn't have any quality of meaning, proof or truth at all, it could just not exist. That is, if existence would be defined as essentially anything of value of meaning, or significance. Why even become aware of anything that doesn't hold significance, no relation, no blip on the radar of life interpretation? Of course existence could be said to precede but it would open the door to the question on what we mean with existing or being. It would mean two completely different modes at the very least.

Now I've argued on this forum many times for Aristotle's attempt to show-case the law of non-contradiction with forms similar to A=A to function like the axiom, the "truth" of any organization of perception as if it could have a certain anatomy when looking at it. And it cannot have any proof following some of Gödel/Hofstadter's reasoning: provability as weaker notion than truth.

Which would bring me to the question: how many dichotomies are you proposing? And would there be any order in them or just any dichotomy as some expression of dualism? Because it seems to me you are arguing here for dualism lying at the base of plurality of existence (10000 things). If that is a correct view on the fundamentals of your philosophy, then I don't disagree with that part.

But I do have various question marks on how much of this can be applied to politics and the world at large in terms of political, economical or social theory. The logical necessity for it to become a guiding principle to do that I will attempt to object to. Or I haven't found yet the way you are transposing the fundamentals on logic and absolute to the way of being in the world. The whole issue of praxis.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Diebert. Thank you firstly for intervening in the matter of ‘off Topic’ intrusions.

My initial impression is that you are carefully combing thru the Introduction of my book, trying to find your feet and are having a load of past knowledge pressing in on your reading. There may be an edge of excitement and caution to your venturing ‘in’.

Now after two readings of your post you must definitely ‘free – up’. You are unnaturally tense. The key matter here is that this is the restart of philosophy with a new logic, hence it is a complete restart of philosophy. I don’t have to agree with anyone, Hegel included. Get into the flow of the philosophy and stop measuring it against everything you know. You will find Mind clear once you complete Chapter Two. That is the end of ontology and the major part of the system-build is over. From there the metaphysic cruises.

I have no idea how compatible your first quote, “Central to life is Mind …” is with Christianity.

From your paragraph beginning: “That only seems to work …” I can see that you are going to hold onto existentialism. OK, but it will only slow you down.

Your paragraph beginning: “Not free of those, but necessarily containing …” The Absolute is free of all those features of duality, that is why duality cannot find the Absolute. Dualistic ideas are human in origin and we got it wrong. And that covers the next paragraph beginning: “Now I’ve argued …”
Which would bring me to the question: how many dichotomies are you proposing? And would there be any order in them or just any dichotomy as some expression of dualism? Because it seems to me you are arguing here for dualism lying at the base of plurality of existence (10000 things). If that is a correct view on the fundamentals of your philosophy, then I don't disagree with that part.


I am proposing surprisingly few dichotomies, but the number is not important. Just about all the dichotomies in the book are connected, so they do have a serious order. How can you get it into your imagination that “… you are arguing here for dualism lying at the base of plurality”? There is nothing to base that illusion on and everything going against it.

Look at this start to your last paragraph: “But I do have various question marks …” Free – up. I am not trying to corrupt you.

Thank you for being the first to venture in the book and start requesting responses.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

In this essay I will recount how I made progress in metaphysics. It has a theme: finishing unfinished business. The following completes the outline of the systematising begun in the last essay. Finding ‘material’ for Individual Mind is the focus of the story. This is not the place for detail, but I will explain why the subjective ‘material’ that complements the objectivity of National Mind entails Jungian archetypes.

I taught myself philosophy. I never wanted to be taught. I wished to follow my instincts. It should be apparent that conventional philosophy will not produce absolute philosophy and what is the purpose in pursuing non-absolute philosophy? Plenty of people do wish to pursue non-absolute philosophy. It is not apparent to them that truth cannot realise Truth, but it is unlikely they are metaphysically-inclined. They go to university to do it.

The place to start is an influential book. That book was Robert Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. For a lengthy period I reflected on “Zen and the Art”. It encouraged me to find the “Tao Te Ching”. The lengthy period of reflection was due to the fact I could not find anything that followed on from of “Zen and the Art”; Pirsig’s quest impressed me mightily, but ‘what to do?’ I am dismissive of Pirsig’s second book.

I was involved in politics and set out to solve the capitalism versus socialism dualism. My solution was a synthesis influenced by Taoism. In accordance with its rules and what I could deduce from my answer, I discovered an absolute Truth. I was lead to my discovery of Truth and logic by an intuition originating in my solar plexus. The solar plexus is the fourth chakra. It told me logic is interaction.

My solution was of no interest to anyone [it is Figure 1.1 at the start of Chapter One] so I gave up politics to do amateur philosophy. The guiding question was: what did my Truth of political economy, i.e. capitalism—socialism, belong to? [I trust you know the answer is National Mind.] I had the advantage of my absolute solution to a real world problem that was overlaid by moralising. I have never liked ethics. I smelt hypocrisy at a personal level and major error at a political level, re. Communism. Ethics was irrelevant to my Truth and that was ‘satisfying’. Indeed, I wanted to know more about the world without ethics.

I spent years reading esoteric literature, politics and philosophy without a sign of a promising avenue of inquiry. Metaphysics is bereft of obvious resources / material it can work with. I mean, look where it has to come from: metaphysics is fully activated in a realm deeper than the Special Theory. Furthermore, one does amateur metaphysics on their own. It is a highly unique obsession and I did not have similar company to bounce ideas off.

An apprenticeship in metaphysics is the study of a variety of mysticisms. The “Tao Te Ching” is a “must read” for all who want to be well versed in metaphysics. I recommend the Qabbalah for its methodology, but I am not impressed by the theory. It is unlike the rest – more metaphysical-like theory that time-honoured texts. And read any version of Buddhism you like. Plus it is helpful to know about European mystics. You must keep abreast of politics and take on political problems without reference to ethics or values, and read your way across the history of Western philosophy, looking out for theorists to whom you can relate.

Eventually I found Jungian psychology and therein I eventually found the vital clues for my system building. This was my intuition’s biggest moment. Individual Mind—National Mind were jointly built with Jungian archetypes and their socio-political equivalents. The interplay between my notion of civil order and Jungian archetypes facilitated the second synthesis, wherefrom the four natural virtues emerged.

Jungian psychology is beyond empiricism though Jungians wish, or wished, to establish their psychology as scientific. It actually arises from the same immanent depths as metaphysics. This is evident in the work I do with the archetypes. Jung insisted he went deeper into the psyche than other theorists, but how could this be judged? His biggest theory was synchronicity and it is still a supposition. I am unaware of Jungian psychology having political relevance; it is an option for solving psychosis and nothing more.

Jung’s attitude to Hegel is central to “a failure to associate” with Idealism. In his memoirs Jung is scathing of Hegel as an utterer of obscurities. Jung had no interest in concordance with metaphysics because Hegel does a poor job of representing Idealism / metaphysics and Jung was not systematic. The possibility of Jungian psychology having a philosophical ally has not arisen. Idealism was obscurant and unfinished. Nothing indicated how deep Idealism was and nothing indicated that Idealism shared the same depths as Jungian psychology. For its part, Jungian psychology is the closest school of psychology to mysticism. That makes it attractive to some and witch-doctor-mad to others. If you want to observe Jung-bashing in an esteemed reference refer to “The Oxford Companion to Philosophy; World and Underworld” [1995]. Jungian psychology is listed with magic, alchemy, the occult, New Age thinking, some feminism, astrology and dodgy theories by scientists.

The problem empiricism has with psychoanalysis is testability. An Idealist does not have his phobia. He wants to know, “Can I use this stuff? Will it contribute to a majestic perspective?” And there lies the difference in quests: empiricism is after certainty as opposed to Idealism wanting application for a grand schema. Given the dearth of genuine Idealists and the failure of Idealism to previously get its act together, you can see how the author of the Oxford Companion’s entry imagined he could speak on behalf of philosophy with certainty as the measure of philosophy. “And what’s wrong with certainty?” I can anticipate my critics asking. Certainty is about proof and proof cannot go where Idealism must go. I have previously written about proof and Idealism. [Read the whole Oxford Companion entry if you can access it. The author is smart enough to make overtures to Jungian psychology.]

Jungian psychology is a gold mine for metaphysicians. The common interest is mysticism. Jung clearly had an affinity with mysticism, but his lack of a system gives the impression there is nothing coherent to work with. I’ll give you an example. Jung met the femme fatale and the wise old man, together in one of his Big Dreams. He is quite clear that these principle archetypes belong together. I have met the same archetypes as a ‘pair’, in a Big Dream. They are placed adjacent to each other in Individual Mind where they are joined by other principle archetypes, but Jung appears not to have suspected there was a system of relationships, a hierarchy of principle and lesser associates nor been sufficiently interested in politics to comprehend what archetypal associations portended.

Now I need to revisit National Mind—Individual Mind to make a link to my previous essay. Politics and Jungian psychology are the poles of human life. On one hand we are social beings going about life within a nation and on the other hand we are individuals leading private lives. Both outer and inner worlds involve ideas and they connect at a deep level because the nation serves our needs. Common to all nations and all minds is Mind and Jung did his bit to spell out the components without being aware of political implications. Jung did not relate his knowledge of the unconscious mind to Mind because he was not a system builder.

Jungian psychology required an Idealist to appreciate the bigger implication of their discipline. The key ‘package’ is eight archetypes. They were chosen by a research colleague of Jung’s, Marie-Louise von Franz, and presented as “the eight basic archetypes of the Collected Unconscious”. God-knows why she felt obliged to ‘tidy-up’ the “pantheon”. She did not apply them as a whole to any schema, she had no grand designs for them but I needed exactly what she prepared. The whole metaphysic exists by dint of these eight symbols, so symbol-subjectivity is crucial to comprehending National Mind and to escaping duality.

[Ready-made ideas that lend themselves to bigger schemes are a recognised feature of mathematics and science. Many times a researcher has wanted to manipulate data and finds his means have been provided by a mathematician doing pure, unapplied theory.]

Idealism and Jungian psychology were unfinished disciplines, unaware of their mutual area of interest and need of each other. I joined and finished these disciplines coincidentally by my need of them to advance my project. When I completed my ontology I was not aware at that point that I was an Idealist, nor was I aware that my system was called ontology. With politics in one hand and ‘Jung’ in the other I developed my theory of immanence and then saw my way to the creative cause as previously explained.

After ontology I instinctively turned to the philosophy of history which was the right time for Hegel to come to my awareness. T. Z. Lavine’s “From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophical Quest” is the best primer I can recommend. I was euphoric when I found this book because it had taken something like 15 - 20 years to find a similar mind. It is hard to find a text on Hegel that is easy to read, generous in detail and sympathetic to Hegel. I strongly recommend Lavine’s work even though Hegel is only one chapter and it largely deals with his teleology.

I reckon that had I been introduced to G. W. F. Hegel, as opposed to finding him after I had an ontology, his influence would have wrecked me as a mind capable of original metaphysics. Now, I am prepared to defend Hegel’s honour – but not his prose – because his teleology aided my teleology.

When politics, Jungian psychology, religion and history are integrated, you have definitive Idealism. There is only one publication on the subject, my “Absolute Truth” https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974

The difficulty particular to Idealism was finding information congruous with immanence. In a culture unsettled by subjectivity, academic Idealists would not dream of linking with a pseudo-science like Jungian psychology. Hence, it falls to an amateur to defy convention.

There will be an essay each Saturday this month.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

At my request Diebert has removed the off topic posts that were made by Beingof1 and Russell Parr. Thank you Diebert.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Beyond Human Reasoning

In a reply to Diebert I said duality was human reasoning and we had reality wrong. In this essay duality is subjected to critical analysis. The analysis finishes with brief comments on non-human Reasoning.

Human reasoning; dualistic reasoning, is invented reasoning. The ancient Greeks invented philosophy and the purpose of philosophy is to become un-invented, i.e. the discovery of the Reason of creation. Conventional philosophy is based on objective truth and ethics. It is an unavoidable start but the real task is to connect with logos logic and non-dualistic Truth.

Objective truth is enormously successful in empirical terms. It has closely investigated nature but it is not in-tune with nature. It facilitates the degradation of nature. Global warming and environmental degradation are evidence for that. The truth about objective truth cannot be appreciated until Idealist Truth is ascertained. By contrast it is understood that truth is one-dimensional in a multi-dimensional world and truth cannot avoid unintended consequences as a result of being unacquainted with reality.

About ethics nothing worthy can be said. It relies on the sovereignty of truth for its actuality but its moralistic advocates always wish to give ethics priority over truth. What does that make truth? – The pawn of an illusion.

The demise of ethics results from Idealism exposing its irrelevance, non-existence and perfidy. From the beginning of the metaphysic there are run-ins between Truths and ethics with the final confrontation spelling the end for ethics. The logic of political economy does not need ethics, social justice or freedom to make its declaration. The logic of democracy does not need liberalism and its raft of values to pronounce upon democracy. In respect of sexuality, ethics is inconstant and nasty. When it comes to the creative cause, ethics is not relevant to the cause of creation, is not a fundamental force in the world as story-tellers have insisted and it does not have a cause / synthetic a priori or any a priori / existential basis. In history ethical relativity is a persistent cause of conflict, and then we come to the endgame. If ethics ever had a raison d’etre it was anti-racism. This ethical absolute is bigger than the Ten Commandments; the Ten Commandments are ethics, but anti-racism is ethics trying to be Truth and negate a Truth. The Truth it is trying to negate happens to be culture: the biggest Truth of them all. What we have here is an illusion intent on destroying its supporting culture to establish the primacy of non-existent goodness. Objective truth is unable to comprehend the magnitude of ethics’ madness or restrain its mad kennel-mate. Absolute Idealism has to deal with anti-racism as a matter of absolute Truth versus absolute illusion. Idealism terminates anti-racism in the course of completing its theory of existence. The termination of anti-racism means ethics is irredeemably disgraced and irreparably destroyed.

Since truth yields to ethics and ethics is entirely unreal, the tail wags the dog. This aberration indicates how unsound and invented truth is.

The unconditional rejection of ethics is based on its having no existential foundations. It exists in the absence of Truth and dies in the light of Truth.

Objective truth is not rejected but it is circumscribed by; 1. not having anything in common with Truth; 2. being denoted as one-dimensional; and 3. having to endure internal, dualistic inquires that amount to concern about the truth of truth.

The prominence of epistemology in conventional philosophy reflects unease with truth and what is commonly called logic / philosophic logic. Non-academics do not bother with academic logic / philosophical logic and that is an indictment. Seriously intelligent men [any women?] are intent on working through the “whatever of academic logic / philosophical logic” and they make no more progress than the members of Genius Forums on ordinary Topics. No-one, except Richard Rorty, is prepared to admit that, “truth is a dog”. Rorty did not exactly say that, but with rare exceptions no-one is prepared, or insightful enough, to say truth is a dead-loss and dead-end.

Another disgrace for convention is political philosophy falling within the ambit of moral philosophy. Here is the origin of idealism and ideology. The sad side of the ‘dog circus’ that is duality is scepticism. Sceptics are necessary given the faults inherent to truth, but sceptics think of themselves as heroes when they are only dog-catchers.

If something is impossible such as Truth from truth, conventional thinking expects proof to be able to explain why. Proof cannot go beyond truth; it cannot see the wider reality that can support a truth and later smother that truth.

We expect absolute Truth to be complicated and it is.
We expect absolute Truth to be direct and it is.
How are these expectations reconciled? – Complications lie in the ease with which dualistic thinking can be abandoned and subjectivity is accepted as every bit important as objectivity. Needing to discover the eight basic Jungian archetypes of the Collective Unconscious would eliminate almost all persons seeking absolute Truth. When one adjusts to Truth, one is mightily impressed by how austere Truth is. When at the beginning of my philosophical endeavours I showed people the logic of political economy [Figure 1.1] they could not believe I was showing them anything sensible. A cold introduction to Truth, amounting to four lines and eight words, does not turn intellectual wheels. Inability to comprehend Truth when suddenly presented with one, does not prove Truth is non-human, but it does show it is alien to duality.

Is logic non-human reasoning? Rod is a human. Did he transcend his humanity to conceive non-human Reasoning? What makes his mode of reasoning non-human, eternal Reason? The Reasoning of creation cannot be proven, but let us not be hindered by this restriction. Proof is a nicety that cannot rescue duality. It can do nothing to save ethics, nor can it prevent the diminishment of objective truth. After all, proof is a dualistic attribute that, like ethics, depends upon the sovereignty of truth.

Objectivity and goodness have changed the face of the earth and made history and yet they offer no details of the Ideas they rest on. The ‘telos’ / end of duality is to provide grounds for the metaphysics that preceded the instigation of objectivity. The substantiation of metaphysics; the turning of speculation into definitive Truth, in itself is evidence for the discovery of Reason. Rod is circumstantial. Metaphysics is enduring. It is sensible that logic is non-human because the creative cause is common to all creation.

If you are unhappy with my metaphysic then you have to go beyond it. It is not sufficient to criticise. You are not going to rescue convention. Convention has been surpassed; a logic that is reconciled with and validated by a described logos takes philosophy’s biggest prize: the honour of being logic. To change logic you will need to deny existential dichotomies are Truths. That will definitely take you beyond human reasoning, because you will undo human existence.
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:Human reasoning; dualistic reasoning, is invented reasoning. The ancient Greeks invented philosophy and the purpose of philosophy is to become un-invented, i.e. the discovery of the Reason of creation. Conventional philosophy is based on objective truth and ethics. It is an unavoidable start but the real task is to connect with logos logic and non-dualistic Truth.
Rod, you wrote in your book as well "human thinking is dualistic and lineal". But do you mean the ancient Greek invented thought and reason? What about Persian and Hindu schools? Even Egyptian thought? It's possible to conceive of reason as a manifestation of self-awareness, of consciousness itself. Like a contrast, a dialogue between self and other, ich & du, we & world or me in the mirror, that would be the base of the ascent of humanity as "sapiens", or not?
Objective truth is enormously successful in empirical terms. It has closely investigated nature but it is not in-tune with nature. It facilitates the degradation of nature. Global warming and environmental degradation are evidence for that.
Some would say greed and unlimited consumption based on stupidity are to blame for being out-of-whack with nature. And is an animal in "tune" with anything at all? It's beyond our morality and cannot be judged on any promotion or degradation of anything. It also normally has little capacity for right or wrong. But incapacity cannot be equalled with balance or tuning of any kind. The challenge seems to find balance only for those with power to upset it. Or the power to counter any upset, for example those thrown to us by forces of nature. How we respond.

While I think I agree with many of your fundamentals, I do not understand yet how you can apply it as "platform" for any historical analysis as some "philosophical template" to be placed over social theory. To me, that platform would just be called reason, fairness, clarity and such. No "system" or ideology. Or the gap you impose on the distinction between "objective truth" and "Truth". But this I'll to address more in detail during further discussions.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by jufa »

Rod wrote:Hello to the members of this community. As signalled a week ago in my first post, my specialty is heavy-weight metaphysics. In this Topic I am announcing what I know.

The good minds at this Forum bump up against the limitations of truth and fail to gain traction with metaphysics. Our human future depends upon knowledge of absolute Truths. Such Truths are available in my ebook “Absolute Truth” which you can access here
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974

Should you want a hard copy then print on demand is available here
http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Truth-Me ... lute+truth

I am an absolute Idealist and my metaphysic has a metaphysical logic, hence definitive Idealism has arrived. Absolute Truths cover science, politics, religion and history, so there is plenty of meat to get your teeth into. Explanations include: reality starts beyond good and evil; how the void pervades reality; what a soul is; the rationalising of religion; and, determinism in history. Definitive Idealism has never been offered before so this offering is a sign-of-the-time.

Received, so-called, logic is susceptible to an etymological challenge. The correct definition of logic is metaphysical. Ascription of logic to metaphysics is achieved by Idealism defining ontology and teleology with logos-consistent logic. Via a series of syntheses, individuality, political order and the creative cause are linked by their common denominator. Thereby ontology becomes the most inclusive and important branch of philosophy. This theoretical edifice has been emerging through out European history. Its emergence is traced by teleology. Teleology shares the same logic as ontology, so determinism is immanent and not objectively observable. Explication of ontology and teleology produces ontology—teleology. The joining of absolute Ideas explicates culture in general and Western culture in particular.

A new logic means the philosophical landscape radically changes as dualistic consciousness is in part destroyed and in part diminished. Absolute Truth destroys all ethics and values. Goodness does not exist. It has no a priori; no axiom; no perfect form. Ethics is a monist idea and reality is the product of a dichotomous monism, i.e. yin—yang. This inaccuracy explains ethic’s dismal historical record.

One value dominates to the point where it is treated as absolute: anti-racism. Anti-racism does not afford insight into the Absolute and its prominence is philosophically outrageous. It and all ethics prevail in the absence of a genuine absolute. For credibility’s sake Idealism must negate anti-racism. Race is synonymous with culture, so Idealism gives race a context and shifts the focus of concern to culture. Cultures are not equal and Idealism eschews values, so the liberal ideal of racial equality is invalidated. Idealism’s theory on race—culture is presented as ‘Belonging’; racial identity is synonymous with belonging to a culture. Racial nationalism benefits from Idealism’s obligation to negate anti-racism and Idealism’s ability to define culture. That is as radical and original as philosophy can get.

When moralists / liberals see a race problem they do not recognise a cultural problem. This is because ‘culture’ is not a fully-formed concept in dualistic perception and therefore does not enjoy due gravitas. Denigrators of racial nationalism are the direct descendants of witch burners and heretic hunters. They exhibit zeal and moral conviction that would make their sanctimonious forebears proud. We know moralists of old were out of touch with reality. Their modern kin are just as deluded.

The termination of ethics and values is inconceivable to the vast majority. Mysticism does not prepare people for this contingency. By necessity mysticism avoids diametrical contradiction of orthodoxy. Supporters of F. Nietzsche, the great critic of ethics, do not expect ethics’ demise any more than Nietzsche did. Nietzsche had no expectations of metaphysics.

Objective truth and absolute Truth have nothing in common. Absolute Truth is beyond proof and devoid of meaning. Conversely, Truth is strong on connections, which is an attribute that truth barely possesses. Dissimilarity leads to the diminishment of truth. Elaboration on this point begins with a quote. On the page “Quotations On Genius” the one that chimes true for me is Lao-tzu’s, “To see things in the seed, that is genius.” Metaphysical logic is the seed.

Lao-tzu’s statement is a truth about Truth. His statement leaves you none-the-wiser about the Absolute per se. To further elaborate, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity are absolute Truths. The Special Theory involves three objective truths [slow clocks, shortened measures, increasing mass]. These three truths do not reveal the Absolute, and they appear unconnected – one truth does not suppose the others and a new truth could pop up any day. Logic makes sense of strange distortions at great speeds and unifies the truths. Objective truths are disparate because truth does not deliver a coherent picture in regards to existential questions.

Ordinary truth cannot broach existential questions because existential questions require absolute answers. For example, thinkers have long pondered the political philosophy question, “What is civil society?” without being able to answer. It is a key question because the answer approximates what ontology discloses. Similarly, aspects of culture are too involved for a dualistic answer. Existential questions require multi-dimensional, systemic answers and duality is a lineal, one-dimensional form of reasoning.

The termination of ethics sees relevant truths ply their allegiance to the absolute perspective. Historic truths regarding racial discrimination, which were used to endorse ethics, can, without manipulation, be read as affirmation for the absolute Truth: race—culture. In this we see the pliant nature of truth.

I trust members will investigate my claims. They cannot confirm Truth’s discovery because proof is an attribute of ordinary truth, but they can come close to it. They will confirm duality has been hammered, non-duality exists, a new logic has been validated, the Truths presented are without antitheses, the creative cause has been rationalised and a fully-formed metaphysic exists that addresses the raison d'être of this Forum.

Currently there is a big discussion going on at “Talking to the Wall is not Genius”. There is no point in my entering into this discussion. The participants need know what absolute Truth is to resolve their points of view.
As always, in exploring topics, I review the plumline and watch the upward building of the house being built by the masonry of analyzed post. Most straddle the fence of directness to what is being expressed by the original thought of the topic, which is the norm when "good minds at this Forum bump up against the limitations of truth and fail to gain traction with metaphysics." But when the author of the topic says "Our human future depends upon knowledge of absolute Truths," then states: "Absolute Truth is beyond proof and devoid of meaning," I ask myself, what truth is presented by the author which is "Explicit Absolute Truths" which has meaning to define what is being presented?

There is, I have discovered, no absolute idealistic ideas put forth in this world which is more pure than idealistic ideas represented by each and every individual living, or have been expressed by those who have lived. In this digging, I have always been limited to a void which I could not penetrate intellectually, nor metaphysically because, even being able to peer into the seed of expansion, I have always been left with the thought of how the seed came to be, and logic for the seeds being "In the beginning."

So then, etymological, and ontology, and teleology challenge of word meaning, or nature's intent, or phenomena is limited by the very reality that truth absolute is not explicit to any segment of rationale, when rationale is not explicit to intellectualism, metaphysics, teleology, nor the infinity of math.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Diebert. The ancient Greeks were influenced by mystics like Heraclitus. I assume they wanted to use ‘thought and reason’ to connect with their world view. About ‘Persians, Hindu school and Egyptian thought’ I know nothing, but I guess their thinking was theological – straight off they accepted there were gods. But the Greeks want to start with physical reality.
It's possible to conceive of reason as a manifestation of self-awareness, of consciousness itself. Like a contrast, a dialogue between self and other, ich & du, we & world or me in the mirror, that would be the base of the ascent of humanity as "sapiens", or not?

Yes, I accept that.

Animal populations tend to grow beyond the food supply then collapse. In regards to being in balance with nature, it is progress to know that objectivity is not in harmony with nature.

The essay after the next will involve my teleology. It will not be detailed but you will, I hope, see how Idealism tackles history.
To be continued.

Hi jupa. I don’t think you have followed the thread, but all the same here are some replies. The truth is, absolute Truth does not convey meaning. Proof is an attribute of truth. Objective truth is inferior to Truth and this makes proof impossible. So jupa, if you find absolute meaning and absolute proof you will wreck my metaphysic. Good luck.

[Second paragraph] Here is your chance to discover more Idealist Ideas. The void is not difficult to understand. It is explicitly explained in the free download, but I’ll briefly explain it to you. The void exists in combination and contrast with what physically exists. Fundamentally what exists are dichotomies. What is the focus of a dichotomy? – Surely you have got it? And in regards to “the seed”, like yourself, I do not know the very beginning, but I do know the components and principles of the creative cause.

Your third paragraph is ‘meandering with metaphysics’.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by jufa »

Ron states"
Hi jupa. I don’t think you have followed the thread, but all the same here are some replies. The truth is, absolute Truth does not convey meaning. Proof is an attribute of truth. Objective truth is inferior to Truth and this makes proof impossible. So jupa, if you find absolute meaning and absolute proof you will wreck my metaphysic. Good luck.

[Second paragraph] Here is your chance to discover more Idealist Ideas. The void is not difficult to understand. It is explicitly explained in the free download, but I’ll briefly explain it to you. The void exists in combination and contrast with what physically exists. Fundamentally what exists are dichotomies. What is the focus of a dichotomy? – Surely you have got it? And in regards to “the seed”, like yourself, I do not know the very beginning, but I do know the components and principles of the creative cause.

Your third paragraph is ‘meandering with metaphysics’.
Ron, being you states "The truth is, absolute Truth does not convey meaning," What is it which objectify Truth to be Truth? And how can Truth not convey meaning, and be the subject of our discussion?

You cannot explain how the void exist without first explaining the void. I gave you a hint that irrespective of our digging, we come to the point were our digging stops because we cannot intellectually, nor metaphysically reason 'the voids' beginning. So then, what is this void you are attempting to explain to me simply, and what makes it a void in the beginning?

Should my third paragraph be 'meandering with metaphysics', does this not say your metaphysics is meandering? This begs the question: does "The good minds at this Forum bump up against the limitations of truth and fail to gain traction with metaphysics"?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

jufa [sorry not jupa]. I am not going to indulge you.
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:Hi Diebert. The ancient Greeks were influenced by mystics like Heraclitus. I assume they wanted to use ‘thought and reason’ to connect with their world view. About ‘Persians, Hindu school and Egyptian thought’ I know nothing, but I guess their thinking was theological – straight off they accepted there were gods. But the Greeks want to start with physical reality.
Do you think Heraclitus started with physical reality? I doubt that statement when it comes to the pre-Socratic. We're talking about a philosophy asserting change as governing principle, of whatever reality that is being conceived of. The physical as philosophical notion, as "object" would fit more with Aristotle's period, for example his notion of atoms but it really became ideation around Plato's time.

It's surprising you'd think Hinduism could be summarized by referring to the theological. Some Hindu philosophies indeed postulate some theistic ontology but many others don't. It's strictly spoken not even a religion or a philosophical system but a collection of many, resulting more in a way of being overall, perhaps some ethics there too, as generic result. Maybe you're just a bit ignorant on the topic, which is surprising considering your given interest in the ancient Greeks. There's a lot of interesting work out there about all the ways ancient India and Persia could have influenced Greek thought & Judaism. Of course, like all these topics, because of the anciency, hard evidence of anything is near impossible.
In regards to being in balance with nature, it is progress to know that objectivity is not in harmony with nature.
What example would you suggest as being "in harmony with nature" so that we can shed some light on your concept of harmony and nature "in action"?
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Yes Diebert I am not well versed on the old Greeks and Romans. Heraclitus did not concern himself with the physical. You look to have a good grasp of the development of early philosophy. I read the text books looking for interesting leads. For example, Stoic metaphysics are non-existence / have not survived.

The only example of "in harmony with nature" I can think of is advice in the Tao Te Ching to keep the population low.
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:The only example of "in harmony with nature" I can think of is advice in the Tao Te Ching to keep the population low.
Something like China's population control policy, implemented after Mao Zedong's earlier stimulation of population growth, thinking it would "empower the country"? My guess is that he'd have thought about people as human capital, the final resource, ignoring the superior idea of optimum.

Probably you were thinking of something else. Whose nature would it be anyway? The reason of my inquiry was your statement "objectivity is not in harmony with nature", which I think is important enough to ask again: how to approach this meta-natural concept of any state or harmony-with-it?
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Diebert, I see you have asked a good question and I will try to answer. I have come on-line to ask you if you would care to write a 1000 word essay [2 pages], please, on religious influences from the East that could have had a bearing on religion in the Roman world. I am curious about whether they were all dualistic. Was duality an inescapable influence?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

For what it's worth, Rod. In relation to:
Diebert wrote:Some Hindu philosophies indeed postulate some theistic ontology but many others don't. It's strictly spoken not even a religion or a philosophical system but a collection of many, resulting more in a way of being overall, perhaps some ethics there too, as generic result. Maybe you're just a bit ignorant on the topic, which is surprising considering your given interest in the ancient Greeks. There's a lot of interesting work out there about all the ways ancient India and Persia could have influenced Greek thought & Judaism. Of course, like all these topics, because of the anciency, hard evidence of anything is near impossible.
It is obviously hard to understand how any ancient people came to understand their world, and harder still to rely on our modern interpretations of their thought, but it occurs to me reading Diebert's statement that as far as 'metaphysics' go, and ontological definitions, that you (Rod) would benefit from understanding how these various Seers of the Indian subcontinent came to see and describe their world.

Holderlin was obviously taken with the Greeks and articulated his lyricism from his sense that these 'gods' were real indeed, as real as anything. My impression, having attempted to gain some understanding of how the so-called 'Rishis' saw their world and organized their mantric poetry, is that it amounted to a similar effort (perhaps in some sense) as Holderlin writes in the following poem:
  • Holy spirits, you walk up there
    in the light, on soft earth.
    Shining god-like breezes
    touch upon you gently,
    as a woman's fingers
    play music on holy strings.

    Like sleeping infants the gods
    breathe without any plan;
    the spirit flourishes continually
    in them, chastely kept,
    as in a small bud,
    and their holy eyes
    look out in still
    eternal clearness.

    A place to rest
    isn't given to us.
    Suffering humans
    decline and blindly fall
    from one hour to the next,
    like water thrown
    from cliff to cliff,
    year after year,
    down into the Unknown.

    ― Friedrich Hölderlin
My impression of the early Rishis is that they were, essentially, existentialists, and it seems they gazed upon the world and noticed the different elemental potencies that flowed through it and attempted to give names to them, but that the names were understood as also holding keys to those potencies themselves.

It would not surprise me if, in a similar way, the pre-Socratic origins of ontological definitions and 'naming' rose out of a similar vision (of the world).
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 »

Rod wrote:Diebert, I see you have asked a good question and I will try to answer. I have come on-line to ask you if you would care to write a 1000 word essay [2 pages], please, on religious influences from the East that could have had a bearing on religion in the Roman world. I am curious about whether they were all dualistic. Was duality an inescapable influence?
It's a rather big topic although I wrote some on it before which I could recollect. One book I believe explores the possibilities is The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies.

It's interesting to determine where or when exactly the transformation from mythopoetic thought to philosophical thinking occurred. Or in other words the shift from more personalized myths to impersonal, systematic and ultimately argumentative approaches later on. We also can see mixtures, you mentioned the Tao Te Ching since it employs the direct power of poetry and imagery of words with the impersonal, abstracted thinking. Which seems also the very topic and purpose of the author to display both.

There are certainly existentialist element to it, as Gustav helpfully suggested but then employing the mythological, metaphorical discourse instead of modern, somewhat deconstructing narratives.

Also of interest is the Zoroastrian-Persian Influence, which although theological, pantheist perhaps, might be better described as a "belief in an immanent self-creating universe with consciousness as its special attribute" perhaps linked to some extent to Indian Brahmanism. When it comes to tracing dualism I believe Zarathushtra to be an important "founder" with the ideas of this fundamental division between truth/wisdom/order and lie/ignorance/chaos. Here one can see also the traces of a concept of "evil" and of teleology even: a purpose for creation and its guardians emerges.

Not sure yet where to take if from here although I do think some more fleshing out of the Zoroaster angle could be interesting in shaping our thoughts on the topic at hand and see where exactly "subjective story" becomes "objective argumentation".
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

As you know, I consider dualistic thought to be a disaster [just about everyone does], but I also consider it an unavoidable disaster. I even suspect Christ was aware of this [as per my next essay]. I know duality is capable of providing the opportunity for its transcendence via determinism. The conditions for determinism exist in the West. I would not be able to identify things absolute if they did not exist. I will elaborate in a following essay.

Conversely, the requisite conditions do not exist in Moslem countries and I will elaborate on their situation for helpful comparison with the West.

The topic here is the evolution of consciousness starting from duality, which is basically what teleology is about. If you Diebert, or anyone, wants to write on this subject it will be well received. As you began your post by saying, "It's a rather big topic ..." We do big topics here so away you go. A reprint would be fine.

I like the prospect of "subjective story --> objective argument --> ? being pursued as a side-Topic for contributions as "supplementary teleology" or "speculative teleology". Thanks Diebert.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Diebert asked me,
What example would you suggest as being "in harmony with nature" so that we can shed some light on your concept of harmony and nature "in action"?
And restated the question as:
… your statement "objectivity is not in harmony with nature", … how to approach this meta-natural concept of any state of harmony-with-it?
Science works by reduction; chopping things up to objectively see the components and perhaps how they connect. It also enters into studies without taking account of all components because it does not know all the components. Consequently, science has the potential to leave things out, environmental impact being one of the great historical examples.

Medical science has the capacity to allow people to survive and survive longer. It does not take into account whether this is environmentally helpful.

Scientists and engineers are building increasing number of machines without thought to the global impact of all these tools, cars and other vehicles included. Basically our objectivist systems do not know whether or when to stop. They are aided and abetted by the idea that growth is good. In short there is no capacity for comprehensive thinking. This point needs examining.

Objective truth is one-dimensional and comprehensive thought, i.e. Idealist metaphysics, begins with two-dimensions and extends to four-dimensions in the case of culture. The crucial question is: is there objectivist metaphysics? I actually think that animal is a unicorn. We get the horse bit, but that pointy thing happens elsewhere in the animal world.

The attempt to make science into a unicorn, i.e. something it cannot become is covered by Holism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism and Holism in Science, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science These are two theoretical attempts to make objectivity more than it is. As you will see they are criticised as pseudo-science.

I reckon objectivist metaphysics is what existentialists try to do and existentialism is a dead-end, but I will let you advise me on that one Diebert. The problem with objectivity is that it is unlikely to [comprehensively] know the full extent of a phenomena and that leaves holes in our knowledge which means scientists are unlikely to be in harmony with nature.

Definitive Idealism presents complete systems: National Mind, Individual Mind, the creative cause and culture. These Ideas are removed from objectivity and are examples of comprehensiveness. They are also natural. Being in harmony with nature is another matter. However, Idealism thus demonstrates that it has a better grasp of nature than empiricism and that should deflate objectivity’s estimation of its ability to know nature. Also, Idealism ends the delusion that surrounds values. Prime candidates for debunking are progress and growth, which are closely allied to science.

While I cannot provide a working example of “harmony with nature”, you may see that I can contrast objectivity with comprehensiveness. Add the fact that Idealism deals to ideas that have been closely allied to objectivity and terminates them, and then you may see all-powerful science become a suspect and / or dubious exercise. It is certainly dethroned by Idealism and that can only help achieve “harmony with nature”.

I have substantiated my original statement that “objectivity is not in harmony with nature" and I cannot give an example of “in harmony with nature”.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod: I have substantiated my original statement that “objectivity is not in harmony with nature" and I cannot give an example of “in harmony with nature”.
What is your definition of 'nature'?
Locked