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 »

Rod wrote:The apprenticeship for metaphysics is mysticism (that metaphysics in essence 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 [Idealists?] 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.
This seems to be true, and yet it is troubling. I don't have any idea what moves Russell, but I think I have some sense of what moves Seeker. I think he has had/is having what are called 'powerful experiences' which, in a sense, have overwhelmed him. He seems (again IMV) to have become a little undone by his experiences, but which are yet classically 'mystical'. And he is very young. As is Russell. This does matter, IMV.

It seems to me that the reduction that needs to occur as one examines the question (of metaphysics), is to posit where and how philosophy itself originated. And my understanding is that it was born out of religious, and thus mystic, experience. The first order of experience is intuitive/mystical, and then comes the explanation.

My impression of Seeker is that name-calling, with no back-up, is a last resort at least right now for him. He has seen that he cannot communicate what he desires to (the intensity of his experience) through his discourse, and has 'run up against a brick wall'. This I imagine is a tough place for a gregarious mystic.

As I have attempted to describe, all of my experience has been mystical (non-rational, and coming through channels other than rational and studious processes), but I came to a point of realizing that mystic vision, if it does not translate into concrete activity, is incomplete. My model for this statement is classic shamanism: the Vision quest is a unique and personal event, but the value of it is in what it brings to the tribe.

I have not (yet) been able to read carefully through these essays but I do hope to get to it.

Yet I will add this: Rod, if the object as it were is to understand something mystically, what brings one to that experience is not and cannot be the content of your essays. The essays are 'preaching to a choir of the converted' are they not? Or perhaps I should pose this as a question: What is the purpose of your essays?
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Russell Parr »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: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 would agree with this disregarding the "zero analytics, zero reasoning" part. Despite being illiterate, he was a highly intelligent fellow, and described reality in great detail. Believe it or not, I have experienced what I would compare to his "samadhi" on many occasions, though not nearly as intensely. However, I don't think such a declaration is noteworthy at all, as most mystical experiences have nothing to do with enlightenment. Just look at any faith healing video.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

To say 'zero analytics, zero reasoning' is not to say non-intelligent. According to the 'scripture' of Ramakrishna, his jnani phase was one of applied discrimination (that is, if one 'believes' the written accounts). He is said as you know to have launched into each of the methods of approach and gone to the ends of each. Thus for India he is a Saint. (Although some within India regard him as a total loon).

But when we speak of 'analytics', and if we look for a model of it, I think we'd have to posit a figure like Aristotle, and he was decidedly non-metaphysical and non-transcendental. And intensely 'prepared' intellectually. What produces a Ramakrishna - who knows? Same with Ramana Maharshi. Indian culture is possibly one of the most metaphysically-oriented of cultures. By the same token, though it operates differently, so is Germanic culture. And if there are 'enlightenment' figures, the enlightenment functions differently. The difference is relevant and meaningful. The difference is all the difference (IMV).

As a counter-motion to your Christian faith-healing video, I present a Kali-Puja video and remind you that Ramakrishna was, for some time, a priest in Dakshineswar Kali Temple. I have no idea what they did there. But it is wise to remember that Ramakrishna has a context. Christian belief is also a context and yet it produces exalted figures.

One thing that might be said though is that many of the contact points between Westerners and the enlightened of India (the effect on Westerners) has not been very productive. This is likely to be one of the reasons for what you may gather as my critical position of enlightenment as an object or goal.

My interest in Rod's exposition is that I heard notes in it that seemed essentially Western, and I noted the term 'nation' and 'national'. I am interested in Indo-Aryan metaphysics but as they function in the Occident and, not to mince words, in white culture specifically: Northern Europe and the pan-Germanic world. I don't claim to be either enlightened nor a mystic but I attempt to follow Idea and understand Idea as flowing out of Logos (I have no other way to put it). It will be interesting to see how Rod develops his discourse.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Russell Parr »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:And if there are 'enlightenment' figures, the enlightenment functions differently. The difference is relevant and meaningful. The difference is all the difference (IMV).
It may be expressed differently, which might be influenced by culture, but the core understanding that results from Enlightenment is always the same, wherever it emanates.
As a counter-motion to your Christian faith-healing video, I present a Kali-Puja video and remind you that Ramakrishna was, for some time, a priest in Dakshineswar Kali Temple. I have no idea what they did there. But it is wise to remember that Ramakrishna has a context. Christian belief is also a context and yet it produces exalted figures.
It seems you misunderstood why I posted the faith-healing video, which is simply to say that mysticism and/or religious experiences have nearly nothing to do with Enlightenment. It is obvious that various cultures around the world come up with their own ridiculous rituals, no doubt often the result of misguided mysticism, none of which I am concerned with.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Rod:
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.
You say it is I that does not understand but after rereading our exchange and reflection, I am now positive it is you that is not understanding.

Here is what you do not understand - now please, I encourage you, before you wave your hand in a dismissive way, try to get this.

I did not 'build' a framework of the absolute on mathematics, I demonstrated it is conceptual thought and that falls woefully short in the experiential reality of this thing called life. That alone is sufficent evidence of the transcendent thing you have personally labeled 'The Absolute'.

After looking at your responses, it appears to me that you are having an emotional response to the word "mathematics" without actually doing the work of understanding. This could be because of you believing you have already thought it all the way through and dismissed it already, just sayin
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.]
I am quite positive it is you that is not getting it. I do not say this to be combative but your repulsing mindset by the word "mathematics" drowns out everything else.

What you are failing to see is that your entire - ponder this - your entire thread is composed of mathematics.

You have used mathematics in every single word and letter you have typed and in fact have used it to come to your analysis. Logic, which you appeal to, is mathematics. Would you prefer I use a different word so you do not filter it out? Mathematics is simply highly precise language - you need to get that.

If you have a 3" worm as compared to a 3' worm - you still have a worm. The math simply expanded the concept to make it more precise and evokes two distinct conceptual images. The math did not change the concept 'worm'.

Let me give you some examples by quoting you:
The creative cause is energy and logic.
Math
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.
Math
The two-dimensional dichotomy pertaining to the Critique is the observer and the observed.
Math
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.
And more mathematics.

I repeat - every single sentence you type is zeroes and ones.

I really hope you move beyond the word "mathematics" so we can actually talk.

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.
I saw your understanding of transcendent truth and is why I responded.
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.
I am so positive it is you that is not 'getting it'. My evaluation of you is you believe yourself to be so brilliant only a handful can possibly understand and because I used mathematics (objective truth) I cannot possibly understand metaphysics because only you can understand while using mathematics.

Answer this question - do not just blow it off - actually answer it.
This one:
If I am able to
see the truth in what I write, both in regards to metaphysics and empiricism
how am I not able to move beyond objective truth?
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.
So do I.
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.
Dude, I have spent more time in meditation than any other human being I have ever met and attribute most all of my understanding to mystical insight. I have spent time in Christian communes, ashram, and in the wilderness for months fasting and prayer/meditation. Your discernment just shorted out. You need to rewire your intuition.

Your discernmant of other people and where they are at needs some serious work. You need to work on your intuition - and I mean big time. Take this from a fellow mystical truth seeker, m kay?

The really hilarious part to all of this is you believe I am an academic and most everyone else on this board believes I am way out there with all that mystical stuff.

It brings a quote from Jesus to mind:
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Gustav Bjornstrand:
As I have attempted to describe, all of my experience has been mystical (non-rational, and coming through channels other than rational and studious processes), but I came to a point of realizing that mystic vision, if it does not translate into concrete activity, is incomplete. My model for this statement is classic shamanism: the Vision quest is a unique and personal event, but the value of it is in what it brings to the tribe.
Big grin coming from this direction
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Thanks Beingof1. I have appreciated your analysis here, especially the clarifying statements about our language as an expression of mathematical relationships, and also your understanding of consciousness as 1) causeless and then 2) an allusion to non-linear causation. That allows for a reasoning person to have insight into what grace (χαρις) may mean.

There are surely various levels of language (word-logic), but two poles are important: one a precise use of language that expresses an acute analytical frame of mind, and another which seeks to handle language to express what comes to one from another and very different frame of mind: the poetic and the mystic.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Russell wrote:It may be expressed differently, which might be influenced by culture, but the core understanding that results from Enlightenment is always the same, wherever it emanates.
What is that core understanding?
Russell wrote:It seems you misunderstood why I posted the faith-healing video, which is simply to say that mysticism and/or religious experiences have nearly nothing to do with Enlightenment. It is obvious that various cultures around the world come up with their own ridiculous rituals, no doubt often the result of misguided mysticism, none of which I am concerned with.
Well, you both give and take here. 'Nearly nothing' opens quite a distance that 'absolutely nothing' would not allow. What I notice is that you claim and you 'own' enlightenment. I mean: you indicate that you are the one who decides. And since I wish to understand enlightenment you are the one to ask. What is enlightenment?
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

I predict that Alex would have squirmed thinking he's found some contradiction just then, if I hadn't taken this time to laugh at his stupidity in advance.
I did not think that I had discovered a contradiction. It has more to do with my neoplatonic understanding of things. Sort of like sunlight shining into a pool of water: the deeper it penetrates into murky water, the less clear it is. And if man and his understanding depend on his depth (location) and level of murk surrounding him, this certainly affects how he views and interprets light.
Russell wrote:It is obvious that various cultures around the world come up with their own ridiculous rituals, no doubt often the result of misguided mysticism, none of which I am concerned with.
There I notice a difference which will likely affect our communication. I am concerned with all the different levels, from the 'top' all the way down into the murk. I have to be, because I am an 'incarnated being' myself and I too am inside of a body and contained within contradiction. I am vitally interested in and concerned with the polis and the reference is again Platonic: the purpose and the function of knowledge, and in this sense the function of grace (χαρις) - and now Consciousness acts in relation to incarnated being - is fundamental to my concept, my approach, my endeavor. I am in this sense (to employ a metaphor) a Johannine Christian-of-sorts.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Russell Parr »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:What is that core understanding?
It's been discussed with you and others for as long as you've been there, and clearly you are unwilling, and probably more so unable to learn. Maybe another day.
Well, you both give and take here. 'Nearly nothing' opens quite a distance that 'absolutely nothing' would not allow. What I notice is that you claim and you 'own' enlightenment. I mean: you indicate that you are the one who decides. And since I wish to understand enlightenment you are the one to ask. What is enlightenment?
I don't see where I said "absolutely nothing". As for the rest, we've gone there before. I don't own or decide who is enlightenment. I can only see who isn't. If you actually discovered what it is, you would know what I and others have been talking about the whole time. Until then, you're in the dark.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Russell wrote:As I assumed, Being was agreeing with Rod for probably no other reason than to incite a good feelings in himself. Now notice he and Gustav are sharing "thanks" and "grins." This type of "longing to belong" is counterproductive to the path as it reinforces the ego.

Seeker, eventually you'll have to cut the charade. It's quite unbecoming of you. If you think you can help Gustav or others, please, by all means, do so. Put yourself out there. It's OK to make mistakes. This "what's in it for me" attitude expresses nothing more than some sort of selfishness/self-preservation.
Ah, yes. The 'absolute condescend'. As it happens, among the hyperspiritual, they seem to me to often give off a sort of hyperarrogance. I see this as game. And it seems to me to be rather intimately bound up with (what is described as) 'ego'. Usually, this is the point where dialogue goes sour. And FYI and in my case this has been the moment when reverse-contempt comes into play, as play.

I think you are largely wrong, Russell, about Beingof1's comments. The 'thanks' was not part of an 'ego-game' but rather the recognition of a similar ethical understanding. It has nothing to do with 'longing to belong' (what an absurd assessment) but rather ethical agreement within another, dissimilar, ethical platform and group.

If the question is 'What is counter-productive to the path', then this conversation can be broached honestly and forthrightly. What you have done though Russell is to do so as a snot. In the past, as you know, I have called you on this. It is a very - permit me to say - spiritually immature attitude and, to me at least, reveals that you choose to act from an unbecoming childishness.

Then, to pull the same stunt with Seeker only compounds the joke, the underpinning gamishness. I have been down all these roads Russell with the hyperspiritual. I see games, not important realization.

And I ask: You want me to value and respect your 'realization' when I see these games being played? It will not happen here, and it will not happen anywhere for you.

Additionally, you have avoided an answer to my question. I think the reason you have done so is because you don't have much understanding of your own material. Just recently, you indicated that you were made moderator, and you referred to the Conduct paragraph:
We do, however, strive to maintain a high level of rationality. Genius does not necessarily discourage or denounce ideas and beliefs, only the false reasoning that underpins them. This is the essence of what serious philosophical inquiry ought be.
I say that you operate in an unsupported belief but that you lack the will and the ability to offer, in rational language and in good-faith, a concrete and honest definition of what you mean. You suppose that a definition has been offered 'all along' but what I say to you is that what has been offered all along has been vague pseudo-definitions. Now, I do not want this to be the end of dialogue, or an opening to unending snark and ridicule, but the insult to persons, and the insult to philosophy and also rationality, has been violated by you.
I talk, God speaks
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Gustav Bjornstrand
This one is for you in the video exchanges of who has the mostest culture of mystical traditions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v3xjf1kGlg

BTW, stop telling everyone we have a secret alliance to undermine the new mother hen. Mommy is not happy with us right now.

Mommy thought I was writing just to spite everyone, found out that was wrong and now mommy thinks I am seeking your Camaraderie to start a possible coup and overthrow mommy.

Be careful because mommy is always watching.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

After 24 hours I have found much posting of little relevance. These are the pieces I do appreciate.

Russell Parr
Can you give me an example of the mysticism or mystical practices you are referring to?
Gustav
I came to a point of realizing that mystic vision, if it does not translate into concrete activity, is incomplete.
The essays are 'preaching to a choir of the converted' are they not? Or perhaps I should pose this as a question: What is the purpose of your essays?
My interest in Rod's exposition is that I heard notes in it that seemed essentially Western, and I noted the term 'nation' and 'national'. I am interested in Indo-Aryan metaphysics but as they function in the Occident and, not to mince words, in white culture specifically: Northern Europe and the pan-Germanic world. I don't claim to be either enlightened nor a mystic but I attempt to follow Idea and understand Idea as flowing out of Logos (I have no other way to put it). It will be interesting to see how Rod develops his discourse.


Russell, I will cover this in two weeks time.
Gustav. The purpose of the essays is to promote my ebook which seeks to change the definition of logic. I have approached academics and they are too arrogant to be interested, so I have to find an audience elsewhere.

Being, I told you why maths is not metaphysical to the point where your pursuit was mildly humorous as a reversal of what B. Russell hoped to achieve with maths. If you had a point to make, it would be profound and with profundity comes incisiveness. Instead of incisiveness you came back with a rant that carried on into a tantrum. I am offended. All your ‘stuff’ should be a new Topic. You are unbalanced. I realise I indulged you by replying to your 12 points. Pam came at me with her issue and she finally started a Topic that was quite active. I recommend you start your own Topic.

Mention of mysticism has seen a rush of comment. I appreciate the protests to my assumptions. It is heartening to know you have investigated mysticism, but I am surprised I did not strike a cord with Russell.

I have had Big Dreams, not mystical experiences. However my metaphysic contains a mystical development that I will be outlining in my next essay. Without it there would be no metaphysic. My second set of syntheses transitioned into a third synthesis, the agent being ‘an energy behind accuracy’. The parameters of my system are reciprocals that transitioned into virtues. As virtues they permitted deeper insight into the creative cause. This could not be engineered. Only accuracy with Individual Mind—National Mind could spontaneously allow yet deeper knowledge. Esoteric insight was unlocked by staying true to precepts. So while the metaphysic has my name on it, I can claim to have achieved impersonal acuity.

Now I am sick of mysticism. I cannot revisit it.

Gustav is on the money with mysticism needing to translate into “concrete activity”. The dearth of avenues for developing metaphysical instincts meant mysticism has to be lent on. At the same time I was doing politics and this meant mystical theory had to be grounded. If ethics is totally rejected, mysticism cannot translate into idealist [little “i”] politics and that means political theory different to anything that prevails. Now, how grounded is your mysticism? – It is rhetorical. I don’t want to know unless you can out-do politics as the place where mysticism-related theory meets reality.

Kindly revisit the third quote from Gustav and you will see, he sees a hard core Western metaphysic emerging. What more could you wish from this Forum. There are two more essays then any further developments will be discussion arising from you reading my metaphysic, so kindly get started if you care. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974

It is time to get back on course. The Topic is Explicit Absolute Truths. If you want something to discuss, how about the interaction of objectivity and subjectivity. I will be looking to see if you know something I don’t.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

To those I care about:
This is a great example of why it is critical to be rigid and never compromise with self honesty. It leads to infinite regressive loops that need to constantly be compartmentalized and separate to keep up cognative dissonance as "logical." It leads to insanity. The reason is you have to make sure that no contradictory concepts come into conflict or you are forced to look in the mirror and that is just to painful for most.

If you want enlightenment three things are needed. Truth, humility and honesty. There are no shortcuts. The ego paints the picture that once everyone else recognizes you as special - *Nirvana* and *Bliss*. It is a trap and cloak designed to conceal the self deception that keeps one on the merri-go-round of a maze of lies.

You see; Rod at this point cannot allow me to'win' no matter the cost in logic, methodology, fair play and most important of all - he sacrifices the Truth on the alter of his ego.

All of it, sacrificed - instead of seeing someone who could possibly help him flesh out his book - he sees a game of competition. He must now demonize me to the readers and in his own mind, he must justify this deceptive game by spindling me with insanity and to the readers as someone who just does not 'get it'.


Rod:
Being, I told you why maths is not metaphysical to the point where your pursuit was mildly humorous as a reversal of what B. Russell hoped to achieve with maths.

How is that conversation going with the little sock puppet in your head?

Yes; lets pretend you informed me soundly by not addressing what was said and just simply ignored it but lets all go to make beieve land as if you actually did inform myself or the readers as to why math cannot be used, even though you use it yourself.

Peter Pan Land is the next stop.

1) You state that mathematics cannot ever be used in metaphysics but you use math in your entire thread.
2) You state only mysticism can reach metaphysics but when someone talks about mysticism you say:
Now I am sick of mysticism. I cannot revisit it.
I mean; how insane the ego is!

So - let me get this straight: you can use mathematics but I cannot. Could that be because numbers never ever lie but people do?

You say you are positive it takes mystical experience to achieve understanding of the absolute and now all of a sudden - it needs to be an academic discovery of mysticism rather than experiential knowledge. Could that be becasue I mentioned I have had experience?

Can you pile on the BS any higher because I think you have hit a new level?


To your credit you have discovered that all finite conceptual thought cannot acheive the absolute - but you do not know where to go from there. Now that - is the truth. I know that for a fact because you see, you tell me everything in your posts.

Anyone, with just a wee bit of comprehension skills could understand what was said by me. In fact; someone already remarked on the point and clarification but it wizzed in one ear and out the other with you. Apparently you do not want to understand someone else - you just want the sound of clapping at your brilliance. Anyone who disagrees, you just dismiss becasue you all that and a bag of Fritos.

If you had a point to make, it would be profound and with profundity comes incisiveness. Instead of incisiveness you came back with a rant that carried on into a tantrum.
We both know I made logical points - the only thing I said was you were dismissing logic (math) while using it and you were not getting that and that I had experienced mysticism and for you to work on discernment that could be misunderstood as
you came back with a rant that carried on into a tantrum


I notice you did not quote me - that is how I know for a fact you are a deciever - and most importantly - you lie to yourself.
I am offended. All your ‘stuff’ should be a new Topic. You are unbalanced. I realise I indulged you by replying to your 12 points.

I am offended at someone who pretends to want discussion and turns out to be a liar and deciever - and no I will not just let it slide.

This world is drowning in lies and the human race will not ever survive unless we begin to start with the TRUTH.

Something you claim to be on about.
Pam came at me with her issue and she finally started a Topic that was quite active. I recommend you start your own Topic.
You are not my boss.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

... and after the tantrum came hysteria.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Unfortunatley for us all, and yet I am not complaining necessarily, the medium itself tends to elicit projections from each participant.

In order to have a conversation on metaphysics - a tough philosophical, mythological and mystical topic - requires many many different layers of pre-definition. It is quite tough to have that conversation when different people approach the topic from diverging perspectives.
Beingof1 wrote:1) You state that mathematics cannot ever be used in metaphysics but you use math in your entire thread.
2) You state only mysticism can reach metaphysics but when someone talks about mysticism you say: 'I can't revisit it'.
This has a cogency in it which I do not think can be avoided, and yet I too well understand why someone would say of mystic experience: I tire of it and can't revisit it.

However, the topic is: mystical realization, intuition, mythological representation (how myth is used to articulate truths next to impossible to articulate 'rationally'), and then 'philosophy' itself, which is, still and forever, a discipline that is not so easy to define!

I have not been able to read carefully through Rod's exposition, and certainly not his book, at least not yet. It requires a prolongued dedication of time. But what I have read, though if I work at it I certainly get something substantial, is difficult reading: some of the arcana of philosophical exposition.

Myself, I know of no other way to speak of 'metaphysics' except to start from a ground level and build it up. I do not see how one could begin from the 'top' and define down. Yet, when a 'metaphysic' is defined it elicits if it does not produce a top-down imposition. Frankly this (now) interests me quite a bit and that should be obvious from what I write: How do the things we think, the ideas and concepts we hold, influence and determine how we act in this world?
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Russell wrote:No, I cannot point to something that which is beyond my consciousness because it would necessarily have to be within my field of consciousness. However, I recognize that my field is limited by distance, time, my sensory apparatuses, etc.
Reading this, I wonder (to myself) just what we mean by 'consciousness'? You seem to be using the word 'consciousness in two different ways: one is presence or immediacy. What we perceive or have perceived. Surely we are totally limited, even tragically limited, when we note that were are in very limted perception bubbles.

But 'consciousness' implies something altogether more expansive, does it not? And in point of fact and all the time you and me and everyone point to things beyond our perceptive immediacy - the limit of what is perceived locally - by induction.

And it seems that some part of (what I understand of) your understanding has a great deal to do with 'inductive perception', as is true for all of us I suppose.
I talk, God speaks
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Unfortunatley for us all, and yet I am not complaining necessarily, the medium itself tends to elicit projections from each participant.

In order to have a conversation on metaphysics - a tough philosophical, mythological and mystical topic - requires many many different layers of pre-definition. It is quite tough to have that conversation when different people approach the topic from diverging perspectives.
I know Alex; if you follow the progression Rod did not have a "conversation on metaphysics". He did not respond to much of what was said at all. It was like talking to one of those dolls that you keep pulling the string and out comes "You understand metaphysics but you do not understand metaphysics."

I repeat:
I did not project; I tried to have a conversation and Rod just kept repeating "You understand metaphysics but you do not understand metaphysics. He did not respond to much of anything he just dismissed everything except statements about how bright and insightful he is.

If you believe I am projecting, you are not paying attention.
Beingof1 wrote:1) You state that mathematics cannot ever be used in metaphysics but you use math in your entire thread.
2) You state only mysticism can reach metaphysics but when someone talks about mysticism you say: 'I can't revisit it'.
This has a cogency in it which I do not think can be avoided, and yet I too well understand why someone would say of mystic experience: I tire of it and can't revisit it.

However, the topic is: mystical realization, intuition, mythological representation (how myth is used to articulate truths next to impossible to articulate 'rationally'), and then 'philosophy' itself, which is, still and forever, a discipline that is not so easy to define!
I would say you cannot define it at all if you are dismissive.

Let me give you an example as satire:
Alex, I appreciate your participation but I am an astute judge of others level of awareness and I have determined you cannot understand a single thing I say. I understand you perfectly but you cannot hope to understand what my mind can conceive because I am way over your head.

You do understand my metaphysics in a keen way but when you actually want to talk about it - you do not understand metaphysics and can never hope to because you have never had mystical insight.

You understand my points, metaphysics and what I am trying to achieve but you do not understand metaphysics because you mentioned the word math and that means you have never had a mystical insight and are therefore not capable of understanding. I know this is true because I have a great ability at perceiving where others are at.
Look at the conversation again - I did not project. I just know how serious all of the delusions that plague the human condition is and where it is leading.
Myself, I know of no other way to speak of 'metaphysics' except to start from a ground level and build it up. I do not see how one could begin from the 'top' and define down. Yet, when a 'metaphysic' is defined it elicits if it does not produce a top-down imposition. Frankly this (now) interests me quite a bit and that should be obvious from what I write: How do the things we think, the ideas and concepts we hold, influence and determine how we act in this world?
I was attempting to help his royal highness by pointing out the contradictions and help him resolve them.

Truth has no contradictions. It may have paradox but certainly no contradictions.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Beingof1: I meant to point out that projection always occurs in this format and is one of the main dark-spots to Internet association.

Additionally, I confess to not well understanding this particular thread: what it is asserting, and why it is asserting it.

I do agree with you that it requires 'math' to articulate and that math-logic is fundamental to assertion of the type Rod is engaged in. Obviously there are other non-mathematical forms and yet if one really wanted to one might say that all creation is essentially mathematical.

You say 'I would say you cannot define it at all if you are dismissive'. Ironically, I would say that one certainly can make all manner of different definitions but that they may not be 'truthful'

The problem of metaphysical understanding determining action on this plane of mutable existence opens into many many different problems, it seems to me. It follows that if one's metaphysical definitions are out of whack, one's earthly actions will be corrupt.
I talk, God speaks
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

We have a pest on the thread. He brings to mind an epigram attributed to Winston Churchill:
"The trouble with being the right is the company one must keep."
Gustav, kindly don't feed or encourage this 'performer'.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Beingof1: I meant to point out that projection always occurs in this format and is one of the main dark-spots to Internet association.

Additionally, I confess to not well understanding this particular thread: what it is asserting, and why it is asserting it.
I appreciate that - honesty - what a friggin breath of fresh air.

Hold on a sec while I inhale the honesty - that is refreshing.

Namaste and maranatha my friend.
I do agree with you that it requires 'math' to articulate and that math-logic is fundamental to assertion of the type Rod is engaged in. Obviously there are other non-mathematical forms and yet if one really wanted to one might say that all creation is essentially mathematical.
It truly is. Where all of this leads is to the empty set which is the undefined.

The absolute or infinite is beyond all logical constructs and that is the point of Rod`s work which is right on target. This is one of the biggest blockages to illumination or understanding because the mind gravitates to logical frameworks fueled by emotion.

The question following that is what does this mean and is that useful?
You say 'I would say you cannot define it at all if you are dismissive'. Ironically, I would say that one certainly can make all manner of different definitions but that they may not be 'truthful'
I am not quite sure what you mean here but I would say this ties in with my first point, again if I am following you.

Once one 'settles' for a model of reality it seems to be endemic to human nature to circle the wagons and a repulsive mindset sets in.
The problem of metaphysical understanding determining action on this plane of mutable existence opens into many many different problems, it seems to me. It follows that if one's metaphysical definitions are out of whack, one's earthly actions will be corrupt.
Absolutely true and you may be referring to my extreme sarcasm.

I will let you think what you will ... :)
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Rod wrote:We have a pest on the thread. He brings to mind an epigram attributed to Winston Churchill:
"The trouble with being the right is the company one must keep."
Gustav, kindly don't feed or encourage this 'performer'.
Are you ready to put your big boy pants on?
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Being, you have warped Gustav’s mind and I had better stop the rot.

I will address you but you will be none the wiser after this piece and therefore I am making things clear for others. What I say is additional to and implicit to what I have already said about metaphysics and maths.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with maths. Maths are a feature of empiricism and are not deep enough to divine Truth. To make matters simple I will refer to God as the creator. God does not do maths. God works with dichotomies because of their inherent dynamism. Maths does not have a reciprocal to provide a subjective complement to maths’ objectivity. That automatically denies maths any prospect of immanent significance. Metaphysics cannot employ maths even if it wanted to, and it does not need to, nor want to be associated with maths.

Historically there has never been an affinity between metaphysics and maths. That’s not to say some, including yourself and Pythagoras, have not tried to join maths to mysticism and / or metaphysics. It has not happened and the reason why is the above association of Truth with dichotomies.

The zeros and ones, i.e. “0’s” & “1’s”, that underpin this electronic message are based on empirical truth. This technological basis for communication is not metaphysical in its abstractions nor is it metaphysical in profundity.

You have made the mistake that Marx and many others have, Gustav too apparently, of thinking metaphysics is comparable to empiricism in terms of its perspicacity. The point that metaphysics is deeper than empiricism has been established with the two theories I have made more interesting by revealing their hidden logic. You appear to have charged onto this thread without taking the time to learn what has been explained.

Gustav you are “a bear of little brain”.

Now to the insults. Don’t worry about my “big boy pants”. In terms of pants and metaphysics, you don’t even have undies. Hence I’ve had to kick your bare arse. Now piss off.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Beingof1 »

Being, you have warped Gustav’s mind and I had better stop the rot.

I will address you but you will be none the wiser after this piece and therefore I am making things clear for others. What I say is additional to and implicit to what I have already said about metaphysics and maths.
Already you begin by saying I will not understand but others will.

Would you feel better if I used the word arithmetic?
Metaphysics has nothing to do with maths.
Then it is not metaphysics. The reason, metaphysics must account for all phenomena.

This is a contradiction and it is you that is not seeing it.
Maths are a feature of empiricism and are not deep enough to divine Truth.
I do not know how many times I must say I agree before you realise I agree.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Let me try yelling:
I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE I AGREE.

This is what I agree with:
Maths are a feature of empiricism and are not deep enough to divine Truth.
That does not mean math has nothing to do with metaphysics - it only means mathematics is not able to divine absolute Truth. I get it you see - I sincerely hope at this point I have penetrated that point into your repulsing mind.
To make matters simple I will refer to God as the creator. God does not do maths.
Then this God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent and it is a logical flaw to call him the creator.

The reason, (notice how I do not make sweeping statements without underpinning the point. That is how you do real logic and stuff) God would then be subject to his own creation by the fact of not accounting for all universal phenomena.

In order for something to be known as the absolute it must, by the very definition, account for all things excluding nothing.
God works with dichotomies because of their inherent dynamism.
I agree. The reason I agree is the universe itself must have resistance in order to discern and function with information and energy.

You see how easy that is? To communicate and stuff. You gave a premise and an underpinning reason to substantiate your point. That is how you discuss logical frameworks. You cannot just announce "because I say so." Whether you realize it or not, that is what you have been doing.
Maths does not have a reciprocal to provide a subjective complement to maths’ objectivity.
Yes it does - the expansion rate of the universe/reality is identical to the data made available. That is entirely subjective.

In other words: the absolute is only True if it can be proved by logic through a series of negating all finite things.

The reason is; the Absolute cannot be measured by mathematics and on this point we agree. The only way left to provide evidence for the absolute is through a negative by a constant state of transcendance of all measurement.

If you have another way of providing evidence, by all means I am listening.
That automatically denies maths any prospect of immanent significance. Metaphysics cannot employ maths even if it wanted to, and it does not need to, nor want to be associated with maths.
Metaphysics employs the empty set or singularity which is impossible to define because it is infinite.

I think what you are saying is that the model can never be the reality of the absolute.
Historically there has never been an affinity between metaphysics and maths.
That is because the absolute is in a constant state of transcending all limits, measurement and boundaries. I would choose another word other than affinity. Perhaps coorelate as the absolute is beyond all limits.
That’s not to say some, including yourself and Pythagoras, have not tried to join maths to mysticism and / or metaphysics. It has not happened and the reason why is the above association of Truth with dichotomies.
Do you join language with the absolute? Does language have an affinity with the absolute?
The zeros and ones, i.e. “0’s” & “1’s”, that underpin this electronic message are based on empirical truth. This technological basis for communication is not metaphysical in its abstractions nor is it metaphysical in profundity.
Then why are you talking about it at all?
You have made the mistake that Marx and many others have, Gustav too apparently, of thinking metaphysics is comparable to empiricism in terms of its perspicacity.
No - you have been so dense you are incapable of comrehending anything but your own thoughts. You are oblivious (at least up to this point and I am hoping you have a paradigm) that unless you say it - it is not true by default.

The point that metaphysics is deeper than empiricism has been established with the two theories I have made more interesting by revealing their hidden logic. You appear to have charged onto this thread without taking the time to learn what has been explained.
No - the truth is I am at least five steps ahead of you (sounds like ego, I know) but you are to arrogant and deceptive to see it. Again, I am really hoping you see this so we can speak in mutual recognition. If the bubble pops for you, your experience will be amazement because if you truly understood what you yourself say ( I do not think you understand your own ideas) you could plainly see I have no trouble at all keeping up.

You already said I understood metaphysics, your purpose and have keen insight but what you seem to be unable to wrap your noodle around is how anyone can see what you are saying even though you said it yourself.


Gustav you are “a bear of little brain”.
Multiple choice:
"“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

1) Jesus the Christ
2) Donald Duck
3) Hakuin the Zen master
4) Adolf Hitler
5) All of the above

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"
-- Paul the Apostle

Now to the insults. Don’t worry about my “big boy pants”. In terms of pants and metaphysics, you don’t even have undies. Hence I’ve had to kick your bare arse. Now piss off.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Being, I see that you have drawn me onto your favoured ground for argument: Maths. My preferred grounds are politics, which are far more complex. Consequently I see you can pay lip service to my points without having to enter into the complications of real logic. Throw in a rant or two. Add a misquote, as I have noticed previously, and you are away on your rocking horse.

To put the difference simply your logic is static and my logic does work, including the subjective component.
Rod: Metaphysics has nothing to do with maths.
Being: Then it is not metaphysics. The reason, metaphysics must account for all phenomena. This is a contradiction and it is you that is not seeing it.
The truths of maths do not connect with immanent constructs so metaphysics is not concerned with maths. Metaphysics is concerned with what connects with immanence. No, metaphysics does not have to account for all phenomena. You ignore the failure of maths to be of absolute significance, yet you expect metaphysics to trace maths’ place in appearances from the creative cause. You call your ideas metaphysical but you don’t square up to metaphysics.
Rod: The point that metaphysics is deeper than empiricism has been established with the two theories I have made more interesting by revealing their hidden logic. You appear to have charged onto this thread without taking the time to learn what has been explained.

Being: No - the truth is I am at least five steps ahead of you (sounds like ego, I know) but you are to arrogant and deceptive to see it. Again, I am really hoping you see this so we can speak in mutual recognition. If the bubble pops for you, your experience will be amazement because if you truly understood what you yourself say ( I do not think you understand your own ideas) you could plainly see I have no trouble at all keeping up.


The truth is, you eluded facing up to Truth and you dropped bullshit. The logic of the two theories are the substantiating presentations for the whole Topic: Explicit Absolute Truths. They are the place where real logic hits the road with big examples and you don’t want to deal with them. The logic of the Special Theory and Kant’s Critique anchor this presentation. They are what you must measure your ideas against if you want to be here and you chose to do a bare-arsed runner.

You need to tell the readers the relevance of maths to Kant’s Critique. How about the deeper reason for the Special Theory, AFTER the empirical facts? Maths are not causing maths, but real logic is causing the effects that maths measures. There is an active logic working here and you don’t want to relate to it. Keep running. On my territory you are only noise and puffery.
Rod: The Absolute [God] works with dichotomies because of their inherent dynamism.
You say YES to this but you cannot expand on it. That is where objectivity fails and the logic that belongs to dichotomies makes reality sensible.
Rod: Maths does not have a reciprocal to provide a subjective complement to maths objectivity.

Being: Yes it does - the expansion rate of the universe/reality is identical to the data made available. That is entirely subjective.
OK, but what work is this subjectivity doing? Nothing. It is just data. The ideas you deal with are not explaining the dynamics of the universe. They are just the measurements. Nothing you can offer explains the Idea behind General Relativity.

Here is your simplistic nastiness in full flight:
Being: This is what I agree with:
Rod: Maths are a feature of empiricism and are not deep enough to divine Truth.

Being: That does not mean math has nothing to do with metaphysics - it only means mathematics is not able to divine absolute Truth. I get it you see - I sincerely hope at this point I have penetrated that point into your repulsing mind.


Maths has nothing to do with metaphysics [see above]. Maths are not able to divine absolute Truth because it is one-dimensional inferior.
Being: Do you join language with the absolute? Does language have an affinity with the absolute?
I have actually covered this in my last essay, re. subjects, predicates and diagrams.
Being: You already said I understood metaphysics
Here is the whole quote:
Rod: Being, you seem to both understand metaphysics and not understand.
April 25, page 3.
Scum.

I see no grounds for you hanging about except I could do with a foil / fool / villain. I am sure you have helped others to understand the difference between empiricism / dialectic and logic, accidentally.
Locked