Explicit Absolute Truths

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

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

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

These contributions are interesting and worthy of consideration. In respect to Europe, and in respect to strong idealism and ideation, in respect to the capacity to come to strong definitions and to give order to the present (or demand order in the present), my impression is that many of the ideas presented here are crucial.

A couple of things: Would you agree that instead of saying 'absolute Idealism has arrived', wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 'absolute Idealism is coming back round again'? Can you accurately say that 'absolute Idealism' has not been attempted before?
Rod wrote:Absolute Truths cover science, politics, religion and history, so there is plenty of meat to get your teeth into.
I personally am drawn to this. Instead of a notion of 'nothing' to chew on, and then endlessly chewing on nothing, here you seem to present something rather opposite. That there are 'teeth' requires an incarnate soul who takes his own physical incarnation seriously (his self in the world). That chewing is undertaken means a deliberate act to transform idea into something assimilable. To do this requires strong decision, and decisions taken after serious consideration.
Definitive Idealism has never been offered before so this offering is a sign-of-the-time.
I have a sense that the metaphor sign of the time is a useful one to explore. The time certainly seems to be 'expressing itself' if you'll permit the turn of phrase. But What is occurring in this time? If we are speaking of politics, and culture, and also race-definitions, one can certainly point to contingent events. But what really is happening there? The question is valid because populism, when it captures what I term 'strong idea' (solid definitions arrived through defining ontology for a powerful example), often tends to subvert the idea into something perverse. So, the present and its 'signs' have an aspect that bodes ambivalently.

Definitive idealism, when defined, becomes an applied structure of value. At that point one is on the ground again, in the jungle so to speak, fighting it out among all manner of idealisms struggling for power and dominance.
The correct definition of logic is metaphysical. Ascription of logic to metaphysics is achieved by Idealism defining ontology and teleology with logos-consistent logic.
That will be true if one has accepted that tenet. Yet if one is convinced - I would ask - has one been convinced through logic (as it is normally understood, and I personally think, misunderstood and misused) or simply though 'intuition'? If intuition, not to be proved through logic. Extra-logical! Is this not in some sense a fancy way of explaining a faith-position? (I do not necessarily oppose such a decision, and in fact I think that many people even when claiming high reason and reasonability make decisions through intuition).
Explication of ontology and teleology produces ontology—teleology. The joining of absolute Ideas explicates culture in general and Western culture in particular.
But this is in some sense a restatement of a Medieval, scholastic position, isn't it? Would it not be more precise to point out that one is attempting, once again, to make definitive statements not so much about 'ontology', but about human choices to be made in this plane of existence? Again, I do not oppose this project as it were, and intuitively I may already have made certain decisions in regard to it.
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.
It would - that is if I follow you - destroy them conceptually. But that doesn't mean a great deal since at any point, and at every point, ethics and values are simply present among us. At the point of enacting a choice there must be an ethical process, an evaluation process. You imply a referent in an absolute, but that requires so many different choices and selections.
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.
Frankly, I am interested in defining and redefining 'racism' or 'race-realism', so this paragraph interests me quite a bit. One will have to identify what exactly has produced the notions that inform 'anti-racism' and then separate them out, and lay them out. Universalism? Catholicism both as universalism and as a 'levelling' doctrine? To say 'for credibility's sake Idealism must negate anti-racism', to my mind, would better be stated as 'Idealism needs to define what race and culture and approach to life has succeeded more obviously in defining and allowing real growth and progress'. It requires the positive definition first, and then a filling-out as it were of a doctrine of racialism, or cultural valuation. Yet this is an incredibly fraught territory! It is easy to make a high-sounding reference to an Idealism project, but something altogether to see it function in reality.

To distinguish 'cultures' requires evaluations, and a vast preparation project (in ideas, ideals). One could not do that without a foundation in declared values. So, value has to be approached or re-approached and the valuations of liberalism (or radical liberalism) need to be attacked, challenged: redefined.

It is only fair to say it is not really so 'original'. It is a project that has started, been foiled and turned back on itself; opposed, challenged, knocked down time and time again. It will be intensely challenging to translate it into an idea that actually functions 'on the ground'. One must also admit that it may be soundly defeated.
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.
I believe that I see what you mean. But it would be better stated that when they see a race-problem they define it as a culture-problem through their predicates, their desires, and in a real sense their idealisms. These are cultural valuations. What you seem to wish to say is that with a different view of culture - essentially more nationalist and chauvinist - a different view of culture might emerge, that might lead to a greater (a stronger) identification and 'belonging'.

I have at this point nearly a zero appreciation of Lao-Tzu. Essentially, one can dismiss him and his ilk and suffer no consequence at all. But I am simultaneously aware that some see his absurdist declarations as the epitome of value and truth.

More can be commented on but I'll cut this off here. I will look over your writing as it does seem interesting and fits in with other interests of mine.
I talk, God speaks
throughthemud
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:52 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by throughthemud »

Ethics takes place in two regions of the brain. The logic center and the amygdala (emotion base.) Ethics can be very logical. Some ethics can be carefully concocted and well reasoned.

For instance, we know that garlic tastes like garlic. We know that we don't like the sensation of our nerves in certain patterns and positions, such as feeling poisoned, or on fire, because they cause us discomfort, and lead to bad moments. So we discourage poison and torture. This is the basis of rational ethics. We don't know what exactly the taste of garlic is, other than what it is. So, the taste of garlic is an absolute truth, but defining what it is, other than the taste itself, is not an absolute truth, unless in the sense of the actual colors and sounds of the words themselves, which are absolute truths. In this sense, lies are absolute truths, because the sounds they make in our heads, are very real. But on the other hand, lies are not absolute truths, because they may divert us from desired paths. Therefore, describing the 'taste of garlic' as it's chemical constituents, is not said to be absolute truth, because there is some degree of distance between the entity being defined, and the entity being displayed, a double-eyed duality.

On the other hand, ethics can be very illogical, and the equivalent of mental diarrhea. Why do we feel outraged when we see a bully shove a weakling into a locker room? Our amygdala says so. For all we know, the weakling could deserve it, and the bully could be the good guy. We don't know anything about the situation, yet we pass judgement on it. For all we know, the weakling could be happy being shoved into a locker room. Why do women get outraged when someone disobeys the dress code, or walks around naked, or a 15 year old boy has sex with a 30 year old woman? Nature doesn't give a shit about any one of these things, people get outraged because of mental diarrhea. Similarly, when someone points out the differences between 'races', someone might cry out "das racism!" Mental diarrhea. Defining differences between entities is no different than giving labels to colored pencils. We label the different humans different categories, just as we give different labels to markers or pencils. To be offended by this, is mental diarrhea. Pure amygdala ethics serve a fine purpose of saving entities from immediate danger, but other than that, pure amygdala based ethics becomes detrimental to a rationally functioning and healthy world.

As far as Einstein goes, I don't believe his theories are absolute truths, but perhaps you meant it in as the opposite of absolute truth.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

It is my experience that the search for absolute truths is the path (therefore not the destination) to knowledge (the destination) of the truth of the single eye of which Jesus spoke.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Thank you Gustav Bornstrand for your ruminations.

You asked about the return of Idealism? My statement is, “Definitive Idealism has never been offered before so this offering is a sign-of-the-time.” Until now Idealism has been speculative. No-one actually enlarged on Hegel’s speculative Idealism even though it was very popular through-out the 19th century. On teleology, Hegel was spectacular and ontology is simply too involved for objectivity-oriented minds to progress. It cannot be incrementally sorted out. The discovery of logic and the ‘building blocks’ for assembling immanence are fiendishly difficult to find. Stripped to its bones, ontology is not massive, indeed it is beautiful in its austerity, and we are talking about the “design of creation” / the plans that precede appearances.

On the subject of intuition, intuition is a mighty ally, more important than I.Q.

I would not know if ontology—teleology is a restating of medieval philosophy. You are one man I expect to be able to report to this Forum on my metaphysic. [Take another Topic page for that.] Then you can tell us if there are historical ‘echoes’.

The destruction of ethics leaves reliance on ‘rules’. Ethics has unfounded pretensions. Rules are simply rules. I will not reply to your later thoughts. These are, as said, ruminations involving associations you are making as you read the Topic. Thank you again for highlighting various points.

And so to ‘throughthemud’. Your lame attempt to defend convention and cast scepticism is woeful. mud, you are a nutter. Let us simply go to the last comment.
“As far as Einstein goes, I don't believe his theories are absolute truths, but perhaps you meant it in as the opposite of absolute truth.”

If you do not think Einstein alighted upon an absolute perspective, then give grounds. In your last sentence there is a triple display of dumbness. Einstein provided a scientifically sound viewpoint on Relativity. Ipso facto that viewpoint is absolute. Could you not ask yourself, “What encompasses relativity?” Where else might Einstein’s viewpoint come from? That is Dumb one. If an absolute Truth has an opposite, it is an antithesis. Metaphysically that is a contradiction which automatically means the denial of the alleged absolute Truth. That is Dumb two. Einstein and other empiricists were not aware that Special Relativity was an absolute Truth. Only metaphysical analysis can find Truth in the Special Theory. Ipso facto absolute Truth is deeper than empirical truth. Special Relativity illustrates how difficult it is to find metaphysical bedrock and accordingly how difficult it is to comment on. Dumbness number three is the irrelevance of your opinion in the company of both truths and Truth.

Many readers of this Topic would like to comment because the Absolute is the biggest issue in philosophy. It is being dealt with metaphysically, and metaphysics is the hardest branch to broach, as outlined above. One way to contribute is to raise a mystical precept to see if it has metaphysical relevance. Or perhaps one might inquiry about seminal books. But you mud are something else. You have offered comic relief.

Philosophy is not a game. Untold millions have died because philosophy is stuck on opinions. Ideology is a name for systematic opinions and whether religious or political they kill. Underpinning ideology is ethics. Only metaphysics can eschew ethics. Very few have expectations of metaphysics, but it is the only hope the world has. You have contributed by obliging me to again use Relativity to point to where metaphysics stands in relation to objectivity, empiricism, ethics.

Hello, “movingalways”. I will work with your statement and riff on the religious element. You have attributed dualistic ideas to Truth. Absolute Truths do work; they are causes and events. Conversely ordinary truths are static outcomes. To connect with Truth one must discover a cause, rather than focus on an outcome. Thus absolute Truth is not a path.

You should elaborate on “It is my experience …” with which you began your statement and you should quote from the Bible. I assume you are a Christian, in which case I have good news and bad news. The good news is: the Trinity is True. The bad news is: you only know the Trinity metaphorically. Though Christianity is a dualistic religion, the Trinity encapsulates a non-dualistic dimension. However, once you know the Truth of the Trinity, one cannot be a Christian, because metaphysical insight takes one beyond duality and Christianity. Hence “(the destination)” you mention is troublesome if you are a believer. The Truth causes a crisis of faith because Truth and duality cannot co-exist in an individual mind.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod: Hello, “movingalways”. I will work with your statement and riff on the religious element. You have attributed dualistic ideas to Truth.
My given name is Pam. Hello Rod and welcome to the forum. You assumed religious, specifically Christian. Which leads me to ask the obvious question: if you have access to absolute truth, why the assumption?
Absolute Truths do work; they are causes and events. Conversely ordinary truths are static outcomes. To connect with Truth one must discover a cause, rather than focus on an outcome. Thus absolute Truth is not a path.
Cause is always assumed as is effect. In order to ascertain the true cause of an event, one would be required to determine THE cause of consciousness. I assume you do not have access to this data. What is actually happening when an event is being searched for a cause is a memory being searched for a cause.
You should elaborate on “It is my experience …” with which you began your statement and you should quote from the Bible. I assume you are a Christian, in which case I have good news and bad news. The good news is: the Trinity is True. The bad news is: you only know the Trinity metaphorically. Though Christianity is a dualistic religion, the Trinity encapsulates a non-dualistic dimension. However, once you know the Truth of the Trinity, one cannot be a Christian, because metaphysical insight takes one beyond duality and Christianity. Hence “(the destination)” you mention is troublesome if you are a believer. The Truth causes a crisis of faith because Truth and duality cannot co-exist in an individual mind.
I am not a Christian, no one can be a Christian. I use biblical quotes to suggest the truth of a dimension-less reality. I suggest that your view of a nondual dimension - what you call The Truth - in contrast to a dualistic dimension - not The Truth? - is a dualistic viewpoint. As for my mention of 'the destination', hard to explain since you assumed my reference to the single eye was because I am a Christian.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hello Pam, nice to know you as a mind because your opening gambit takes me there. In a teasing way you associate Truth and omniscience, and suggest I should know something about you. And next you wonder whether I have access to “the cause of consciousness”. There is value in taking these ‘quips’ seriously.

I do not know your personal mind, but I do know your impersonal Mind. Your impersonal, Individual Mind is the same as mine and everyone else. It is the cause of consciousness and the ability to define “Individual Mind” is crucial to the success of metaphysics. Just as a computer runs on software, Individual Mind is the ‘software’ of our conscious being. Now I have to write a mini-essay to explain.

Here is a metaphysical model of reality:

Creative cause --> immanence --> appearances

For empiricists, appearances are reality. Metaphysics is the search for the causes that precede appearances. The model alludes to the creative cause being ‘shaped’ by immanence and emerging into appearances. Immanence is an ‘area of design’.

The following is about immanence as the crucial realisation:
Immanence is about the nation as the objective manifestation of our subjective being. Every nation has a metaphysical order that reflects the ‘cause of our consciousness’; the nation serves our needs because it is arranged according to bedrock human nature as dictated by. Metaphysical analysis of political relationships assists comprehension of Individual Mind.

The discovery that the metaphysics of our being is identical to the metaphysics of the nation is integral to metaphysics’ eclipsing empiricism.

Immanence and the creative cause are closely connected; the common denominator is “Mind”. The explication of Mind is ontology.

That ends the mini-essay. Here are replies to some of your points

Cause is not identical to effect, but it is impossible to explain without the metaphysics of causation. Failure to appreciate the difference is another failing of duality.

“I use biblical quotes to suggest the truth of a dimension-less reality.” – You are in dream land. Without metaphysics and its dimensions nothing exists.

“I suggest that your view of a nondual dimension - what you call The Truth - in contrast to a dualistic dimension - not The Truth? - is a dualistic viewpoint.” – How about you prop this up with some serious analysis? It is not cute to make unsubstantiated statements. It reminds me of someone else.

A question about a phenomenon that would seem to be unknowable, i.e. the cause of consciousness, is in fact knowable and naturally of vital importance to metaphysics. I have tried hard to be brief and lucid on a subject that is best understood with details.

If you want to take me down, I suggest you check out the Truth that is Individual Mind. Somehow I doubt that you are into serious metaphysics. Do I know something about you?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod: Metaphysics is the search for the causes that precede appearances.
This is true. It doesn't mean the search leads to finding the causes. I wish you good fortune.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Rod wrote:Immanence is about the nation as the objective manifestation of our subjective being. Every nation has a metaphysical order that reflects the ‘cause of our consciousness’; the nation serves our needs because it is arranged according to bedrock human nature as dictated by. Metaphysical analysis of political relationships assists comprehension of Individual Mind.
Rod wrote:Metaphysics is the search for the causes that precede appearances.
Pam wrote:This is true. It doesn't mean the search leads to finding the causes. I wish you good fortune.
The first statement is radical, for obvious reasons. As of today I find that there is an increasing need for statements that are predicated within decisiveness and intensity. Put another way, it is needed that ambiguous, dulling declarations of understanding and purpose, if not outrightly rejected, be at the very least rigorously interrogated. An Hegelian dialectic would demand no less.

What I think will be found - that is, when a statement such as this is made on a forum, and this forum, with a focus defined as it is and with its notable predicates - that a polarity will immediately emerge as each perspective defines its zone of focus. Since I know something of Pam and have come to understand her orientation, it makes sense to me that she would, if the turn of phrase be allowed, friendly enough, 'check out' when, as it seems to be suggested, the focus turns toward a tangible and defined enactment (could be politics, could be social choices, but it will occur within 'immanence'). Essentially, if one desires non-participation in life, and retreat away from manifestations of self and power, that would be the logical choice.

My overall object, right now at least, is to succeed in reducing statements made to their elements, and to find out what really is inside them. I do not denigrate quietism or self-contemplation, and at the same time I cannot immediately, and without due consideration, countenance any suggested path of action when, as indeed seems necessary, it is essential to understand ourselves 'nationally' as Rod suggests. This has far wider ramifications than appear at first glance.

To define what 'nationally' means is where rubber hits the road. To define the 'bedrock nature' of a nation (I'd prefer to say region, and type) is also a fraught endeavour. But it certainly can be done, and in my view should be done. (And of course it is obvious that my position is one that operates in contradiction to the stated goals and objects of the forum. The 'forum' makes a statement, and the 'forum' calls forth response on various levels.)

Finally, what seems to happen within the expressed ideation of this forum, and perhaps all fora oriented similarly (radical internalisation?) is that outward decisiveness is shunned as the general conversation turns, endlessly, on minute definitions and internal regress. True, some people desire and find great(er) value in philosophical endeavours thus pursued. (And all perspectives, again from a Hegelian perspective, have to be inhabited, 'acted out' as it were).
Rod wrote:Until now Idealism has been speculative. No-one actually enlarged on Hegel’s speculative Idealism even though it was very popular through-out the 19th century. On teleology, Hegel was spectacular and ontology is simply too involved for objectivity-oriented minds to progress. It cannot be incrementally sorted out. The discovery of logic and the ‘building blocks’ for assembling immanence are fiendishly difficult to find. Stripped to its bones, ontology is not massive, indeed it is beautiful in its austerity, and we are talking about the “design of creation” / the plans that precede appearances.

On the subject of intuition, intuition is a mighty ally, more important than I.Q.

I would not know if ontology—teleology is a restating of medieval philosophy.
If Hegel is understood as essentially a 'religious thinker', then his work can be linked with a general tendency that can be seen as religious. The Medieval conception of life as a 'whole', while seriously and fatally flawed, which definitions were enforced in many respects and not 'organic' as we might say, is one that requires revision: to break it down to its parts, to repair or reject a specific part, but to reassemble into an operative whole.

If the Medieval project as such has collapsed, and it has, and if we live now in the ruins and in chaos in conceptual terms (we do not have an encompassing and unifying conceptual order), it seems to me inevitable that it will occur/recur. It seems to me that in your case (and there are others who feel drawn to the same quest and project) to redefine metaphysics is part of a larger project of redefining relationship (ontological) on all manner of different levels. One major level is defining 'nation'. I know this sounds strange - dangerous in a real sense - but it really means that an individual must achieve self-definition, and too know what he is not.
I talk, God speaks
throughthemud
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:52 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by throughthemud »

Rod wrote: And so to ‘throughthemud’. Your lame attempt to defend convention and cast scepticism is woeful. mud, you are a nutter. Let us simply go to the last comment.
“As far as Einstein goes, I don't believe his theories are absolute truths, but perhaps you meant it in as the opposite of absolute truth.”

If you do not think Einstein alighted upon an absolute perspective, then give grounds. In your last sentence there is a triple display of dumbness. Einstein provided a scientifically sound viewpoint on Relativity. Ipso facto that viewpoint is absolute. Could you not ask yourself, “What encompasses relativity?” Where else might Einstein’s viewpoint come from? That is Dumb one. If an absolute Truth has an opposite, it is an antithesis. Metaphysically that is a contradiction which automatically means the denial of the alleged absolute Truth. That is Dumb two. Einstein and other empiricists were not aware that Special Relativity was an absolute Truth. Only metaphysical analysis can find Truth in the Special Theory. Ipso facto absolute Truth is deeper than empirical truth. Special Relativity illustrates how difficult it is to find metaphysical bedrock and accordingly how difficult it is to comment on. Dumbness number three is the irrelevance of your opinion in the company of both truths and Truth.
You seem rude and confused. Maybe you've had one too many beers.

"Lame attempt at defending convention"
I rarely defend conventions, most of my post was against the popular conventions.

"You are a nutter"
You made a post devoted to "Absolute Truth", yet almost half of it is about race and culture. My "he's a nutter" alert is on level red.

"Dumb three"
My view is that Einstein's theories are scientifically unsound. That is an unpopular view and I don't wish to have an argument with you about it.

"You are confused".
I probably am. I don't see what your race and culture arguments have to do with anything related to Absolute Truths. Also, you say you are against ethics, but you seem to promote your own brand of ethics.

"Einstein and relativity"
If you are talking about basic relativity, that was discovered a long time ago. Everyone knows that time slows when you are in pain, and that objects move different speeds relative to each other. Why bring up Einstein about it? If you're talking about Special Relativity, I don't think the theory is true. But I stated earlier, that all things that exist are truths, even lies are true in the sense that they exist, so the fact that his theory exists in the imagination can be argued as an absolute truth. Though I don't know why you brought Einstein into the equation, you could argue that Sarah Palin's theories, or 2+2=5, are absolutes in that sense as well.
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.
My honest opinion is that you delusional and can't teach absolute Truth better than them. I don't grasp how Superman flying around Earth is absolute truth because he is in a timezone different from others. I already know that time doesn't truly exist, and that people are in different "timezones" and seeing from different locations on consciousness so I dont see what Einsteins theories have to do with anything and deserve radical praise and status as absolutes. Perhaps it is everybody else who has a clear defined idea of Absolute Truth and not you. Reading your post over I can't even discern a clear definition of anything from you (other than probably in your ebooks which I haven't yet read.)
"Absolute truth has no meaning needs no proof"
It seems you and I are on the same page sort of, but you want to be rude to me apparently. I defined absolute truth as whatever exists in consciousness, so even lies are absolute truth according to this definition. The anthesis of absolute truth would be nonexistence, whatever does not exist is not absolute truth.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

throughthemud: I defined absolute truth as whatever exists in consciousness, so even lies are absolute truth according to this definition. The anthesis of absolute truth would be nonexistence, whatever does not exist is not absolute truth.
Is it possible that when people speak of absolute truth they are confusing it with experiencing things as they are (absolute experience)?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Gustav: Since I know something of Pam and have come to understand her orientation, it makes sense to me that she would, if the turn of phrase be allowed, friendly enough, 'check out' when, as it seems to be suggested, the focus turns toward a tangible and defined enactment (could be politics, could be social choices, but it will occur within 'immanence'). Essentially, if one desires non-participation in life, and retreat away from manifestations of self and power, that would be the logical choice.
Gustav, desiring non-participation in life is for the sake of inquiring into the actual nature of reality. The inquiring one may not realize this at first and end up in all kinds of dead alleys, but when all is done and dusted, 'leaving the world' is necessary to find the truth of the world. Allow me to make two bold statements about the actual nature of reality: 1. there is no self present 2. reality is experiential.

Be brutally honest, can you find that thing you call self and its manifestations? Any answer except no tells me you haven't actually looked. Be brutally honest, can you experience absolute truth? Can you experience immanence? Any answer except no tells me you believe your imagination/conceptualization of things is real. Be brutally honest, without direct experience of reality, what does one actually have?
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

throughthemud wrote:You made a post devoted to "Absolute Truth", yet almost half of it is about race and culture. My 'he's a nutter' alert is on level red.

I probably am [confused]. I don't see what your race and culture arguments have to do with anything related to Absolute Truths. Also, you say you are against ethics, but you seem to promote your own brand of ethics.

My honest opinion is that you delusional and can't teach absolute Truth better than them.
When you watch a chess game begin, it is hard from the first 2-3 moves to see what the dynamic will unfold. But after 4-5 moves you generally will sense just what sort of a game you can look forward to. Here, in this specific atmosphere of idea - and do remember that Hegel has been invoked and is 'metaphysically present'! - there are a few Hegelian basics that have to be registered or else one is not really in the conversation. It is fair to say that with your opposition to 'race and culture' as primary subjects you lack familiarity with the Hegelian philosophical underpinning? The idea that would support this notion, even if it is resisted and opposed - and I suggest that liberal convention rises up in you when you reflexively interpret lunacy in such a declaration about race and culture - is more complex (and interesting) than you imagine.

Your post in "My questions and concerns, and my views", and by your own statement about your own position, could only be understood as an admission of confusion. But I would suggest that what you declaim there is much less a statement about you as a unique person, and much more a statement about how many people *feel* about their existing in a plane of reality they cannot define. Thus, you are not so much speaking about your own self and your position, but you are speaking as a mouthpiece of a structure of perception that is prevalent. In this sense you express a 'spirit of the time' as it were. Those who interchange with you, and as has happened there, will inevitably reflect back to you (dialectical response) what it is you are presenting. And they will steer you toward the choices, viewpoints, processes and conclusions that motivate them. What else could be done?

Now, and I bet that most of us (and possibly all of us) agree that in numerous senses 'the times' are a little mad. If they were not we would not 1) be affected by the times adversely and 2) would not attempt a critique of 'the times' as a blind, determining force that propels us. So, and in numerous senses, we indicate a need to turn against time. To 'turn against time' in one major sense is to turn against basic, impelling ideas that function in time, and with that I'd suggest, coming as I do from my own particularity, that race and culture (and much else) have very much to do with very many different things. All of which can be enunciated. And again, explicated through Hegelian terms. You might not agree with any of it, but the enquiry is not fruitless.

If 'absolute truth' exists, it is logically sound that the Absolute will interconnect at all levels. And thus distinction and valuation become highlighted.

It is not at all surprising (again, after a few basic moves in chess the structure of the ensuing game will make itself known) that the term 'nutter' and also 'delusion' has been trotted out. But there are two levels here (and yet please don't take this the wrong way). A cynical reading of your presentation could indicate a) confusion and b) instability. This is after all the Internet and the door is always open (if you catch my drift). It is only fair that you understand that you'd be vetted on some level.

I don't think that Rod has said that he is here (or anywhere) to 'teach' absolute truth. I think he has merely made reference to Hegel as a forgotten or dismissed philosopher who dealt on the topic of understanding a relationship (my own paraphrase) of man to the conceived absolute. There is a huge difference there and I think it must be noted.

Enlightenment teachers would appear in or arise out of the tenets and declarations of the denizens of this forum, predicated as it is.

What can arise out of Hegelian idealism, or conceptions of Hegelian metaphysics, is likely different. In any case it would have (I believe) more tangible links to events in time and space and on the ground. In history if you wish.
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 »

Similarly, Pam, to participate 'genuinely' in a conversation revolving around Hegelian metaphysics would require more familiarity with its tenets, and its implications. I don't think that such a deviation is recommended nor would I recommend it to you, given your declared stance. I'd suggest working exclusively with 'If thine eye be single thy whole body will be filled with light'. Nothing else.
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 »

TTM wrote: The antithesis of absolute truth would be nonexistence, whatever does not exist is not absolute truth.
You wrote, interestingly enough, 'anthesis': the flowering period of a plant, from the opening of the flower bud. I assume you wished to write antithesis.

In some sense I think your point has validity (yet it is also merely an illustrative phrase), yet more as avoidance of the difficulty of a more difficult definition. I think you might get more mileage, so to speak, by defining the antithesis of absolute truth as nescience. Or confusion. Or lack of decisiveness. Or the failure of any means at all to be concerned one way or the other. Another antithesis (of absolute truth) would be absolute lie, don't you think? Or a platform or a 'place' where truth did not exist at all. Those antitheses seem more potentially devilish and difficult.

I nonexisted for so long that existing now seems like refreshment!
I talk, God speaks
throughthemud
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:52 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by throughthemud »

Typo I believe.

I'm with movingalways, I think absolute truth can be reclarified as absolute experience. I don't know what absolute truth is other than that. I never bothered to read Hegel, but you've piqued my curiousity a bit. I am curious to see how Hegel's chess game incorporates and conflates race and culture as part of the absolute truth game. It's abit like having a topic about cooking, and using terms reserved for corporate speak - the vocabulary doesn't fit the context. You can twist and turn and somehow connect the ideas and make them seem meaningful to each other but it's a stretch. Perhaps what he does is say "Here you are, you are nothing but the sum of your race and culture, your ideas are the products of the times, and here is your truth". Being as someone who doesn't adhere to any culture, I find it hard to believe. My input is mostly focused on "What is absolute truth exactly?" Well, it certainly isn't Einstein's theories, according to me. Now, some of my views may seem like a "nutter" or "product of the times" but we must ask is 500 years from now, will they say I was right or wrong? And if they say I am wrong, how do we know they are right? Because they were shiny spacesuits and talk with the confidence of a thousand cities? I could, be closer to they truth than they, the future society does not always equal a more wise society. Far as nutter vetting goes, that's to be expected when you don't believe Einstein, a product of the times. And that isn't even a product of the times, its the same basic social trope of the Sadducees and Pharisees, with different packaging. You didn't agree with the scribes you were called a nutter. Life follows the same mathematical tropes with rebranded packaging, things aren't so much a product of the times as they are the result of logical mathematical tropes of interaction between entities, which will basically remain the same unless there are radical evolutionary leaps.

I don't think there is a such thing as an absolute lie. It still exists as a verbal construct. For instance, if someone steals your shoe, and he lies about it, it is not an absolute lie, because the words "I did not steal your shoe" still exists. It still can cause anger because it directs you to an imaginary reality - you are still looking for the shoe, not satisfied with regurgitating memories of your old shoe - they are not "real" enough for you. The memories of the shoe don't activate enough nerve endings for your satisfaction.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

TTM wrote:I think absolute truth can be reclarified as absolute experience. I don't know what absolute truth is other than that.
Possibly what you mean is that experience, or possibly existence - that existence exists - is the only thing that could be referred to as absolute. It is a notion that is hard to refute since - at least as I read it - it does not have many moving parts.

But backing up a little, and to clarify (though in no sense am I representing myself as an expert or even that well informed), I think that it is helpful to understand that there is difference between the universe unfolding in our moment of perception of it, and the notion of a reigning or directing metaphysical design.

Since we are referring not so much to 'race' (a problematic construct) as to nation (a different category), it seems to me quite possible to notice that a given nation may be very much more developed than another nation, and founded as it were on Idea in such a way that it is very much more powerful and self-affirming than another. In this way 'idea' in and of itself might be isolated as the determining factor. But idea arises within a people, genetically and organically (or physically), just as that physical aspect is the basis of the idea which crystallises in it. The more powerful, or the more relevant and also possible the more 'true' the motivating and directing idea, the more realised in time and in manifestation is such a people.

And when one considers 'idea', I think it is at that point that one can begin to entertain the notion of 'metaphysic'. In this sense, idea is 'metaphysical to the existence of unfolding things'. Idea is epiphenomenal to biological entity, or so it is said to be, and what is 'metaphysical' to biological entity is not altogether simplistically definable. There is a great deal of uncertainty, or difficulty of defining, what exactly thought and consciousness are. Let us say that the issue is not decided.

But it does seem quite possible to say, and with a good deal of certainty, that defined idea (there are numerous ways this could be described) is the determining fact as it pertains to human beings, to the individual, to cultures and to nations. One could then state, with great certainty, that 'everything hinges on idea'. Without idea men are powerless in numerous senses. But what empowers man is ideas generally, and then refined ideas specifically. There then appears an object: defining powerful ideas which are tools for dealing with, or moulding, the reality (the manifestation) in which we find ourselves.

If this is so, one can then look over 'culture', 'history', 'activity' and so many different dimensions of human cultural activity and begin to make assessments about which ones give evidence of powerful idea. Further, one can make assessments as to which idea-types were superior or inferior, effective or non-effective, productive or non-productive. That in itself is a rather difficult assessment since one will have to have assigned value - recognised value - aprioristically. In this sense it takes strong and refined idea to be able to sift through ideas generally, and this further places emphasis on the individual, his physical and mental entity, and other factors tangible and intangible.

My understanding of 'Einstein' both in fact (as to specific ideas) and as a symbol of articulation of those ideas, would indicate to my mind 'metaphysical articulation' in the strict sense that it requires - if you'll permit the term - a soaring consciousness to be able to conceive in such grand scale. But what element in the kosmos (again, 'if you will') allows for such conceptualisation to occur? Or, what does the human understanding reflect? What knowing is intimated? And at what profundity, or toward what profundity, is Idea attainable, and then translatable down (metaphor-preposition) into our human world?

Existence as 'mere manifestation' is on-going and know one seems to be able to make any definitive statement about what it is, or what it isn't. It is almost too large to really say anything about, since it is the 'thing' in which we are. We are becoming along with all that is/is becoming. But Idea takes on a special meaning, both for the human subject, and also as a nearly necessary explicatory for existence itself. Is existence, then, also 'idea'? Or, what 'idea' has put all things in motion?

It may of course all be folly (Hegelian folly) to attempt to make definitions, and yet definitions are inevitable. The level of understanding that informs the idea we will express about 'what is going on' (my God, I hope I am not channeling Dennis Mahar) may be seen as being connected to large, metaphysical idea, and thus its enunciation is terribly important. It could be mistaken, lopsided, or erroneous, but it is totally necessary and as I say inevitable. (But the opposite of this inevitability is also interesting to consider, and that would be 'failure to engage with the intense question' or recoiling away from it. We could also devolve into steer and merely chew a terrestrial cud in sheer incomprehension.

The Hegelian idea - and to understand one aspect of it as intensity is to mention, for example, Marxist praxis which has a strong Hegelian underpinning - is a radical proposition then. It seems to say: Locate strong idea. Locate powerful and determining idea. Locate purpose toward which to apply strong idea. (And much else).

Personally, and to clarify, I think that the Nation must be understood to mean pan-Europeanism. But one has to get very specific and decisive as one names what it is one is talking about. A nation, a people, a region and a type succeeded in carving out of the Chaos of all things a group of powerful tools (ideas) which have modified and moulded the Earth's culture. I'll be very brief and leave it at that since I think that the idea is quite clear.

As I understand things (and from a Hegelian perspective my understanding must be antithetised) this specific nation must become radically conscious of itself. Put another way it must get out from under certain weakening, limiting and controlling definitions. It has to remember to follow the path (respond to the 'spirit') which has put it in motion and made it what it is. This means, among many different things, a renewed understanding at a physical and biological level, as well as renewal of understanding at all other levels in between that base and whatever we mean when we use the term 'metaphysic'.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by jupiviv »

Oh God not again...
throughthemud
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:52 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by throughthemud »

Ignoring the post above, Don't know who Dennis Mahar is, but that is an interesting name. You've asked some difficult questions. But I think there's some clarifications for some of them.

What is thought and consciousness?
Thought, seems to be similar to the qualia of internalized music. Internalized is music generated from within the body, rather than outside of it. For example, listening to a symphony is external music, imagining/hearing it afterwards is internal music. Thought, seems to be similar to internalized music, but slightly less defined. The inner voice is harder to define. It is clear and audible like a trumpet, you can hear each word's phonics clearly, but also ambiguous in timber, it is the trumpet you can't really place what it exactly sounds like. Movies try to do this by putting a lot of reverb on the voice to make it sound thoughtlike, but actual inner voices are way more ambiguous than that, its not just a matter of taking a regular voice and adding reverb.
There is the second component. Well you got thought as a type of electrical audio (as opposed to atomic vibrations/external sounds outside the body) but what of the action correlated by the thought? Thought seems to be the tip of the iceberg, an analogy to draw would be computer coding. You could use a language like Flash or C++ and tell it what words to do, which then translates into machine code you are unconscious of. It works similar to the brain, our thoughts are only the tip of the iceberg of the underlying processes of action. But unlike computer code, it's unclear in terms of which is originating the action. Are our thoughts the one determining the subconscious processes, or our subconscious processes determining our resulting thoughts? Metaphysics might say it's a bit of both.
What is consciousness is a more simple question to answer - if anything exists, one could say that consciousness also exists. Consciousness is simply occurring when there's anything existing. The more difficult questions are how why and in what manner does consciousness arise and the processes in which it does, and how can simultaneous consciousnesses exist in parallel eternities, why consciousness seems associated and bound to bodies and brains, is consciousness eternal, can consciousness not exist, etc. But we know what consciousness is, if something exists then consciousness exists. What we don't know, is "this" the prime or only form of existence, could there be a universe with none of our common qualia, and have totally unique qualia, basically disregarding+throwing Plato's forms out the window? A consciousness so odd that no artist could imagine it, no writer could write it, no movie could depict it - those kinds of questions are difficult to answer.

What is an idea? One must first analyze the jelly of it, and see which qualia it bridges and forms. We know there are only 5 or 6 qualia, so an idea can only be a combination of those qualia. Or else an idea would be it's own qualia. Similarly, an imagination of an image, is a visual qualia, but its a bit more surreal than day vision, so an idea can only be a combination of the 5 or 6 qualia we have, but in different flavors and forms. An idea that "We should go to a rollercoaster ride" usually entails thoughtsounds, some emotional feelings, and images of rollercoasters, maybe even with brain-generated music playing in the background.

The question of "What is existence, other than what it is" I cannot answer. But perhaps a question that might get some grounds is "Can there be any brand new brand or flavor of existence besides our own"? What I mean by this is something not seen by the 5 or 6 senses. For example, 2001 space odyssey was just a brand or flavor of existence, scifi is just a flavor, buddha brand is just another brand and flavor. What I mean is something brand new. Like a type of existence where there are no rocks, no grass nor anything like grass or rocks, something that we cannot even perceive. In this mode we cannot see grass nor rocks, yet, not blind. That may give you headway, on "what is existence exactly."

As for an idea that must be followed, why not? Future generations may thank us. It's like, you look in the past and say, I was happy in the past, but it didn't really matter, cuz it all fades away. Then you wonder, well, maybe it does matter, because I still have a memory of those moments. Then you say, well, my memories gone now, but even without memory, maybe it does matter, even though I don't have memory, because the experience of that thing felt real at the time, and can I really say it doesn't have value even though, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist, but perhaps some where, at some time, it did exist? You throw all that out the window and say "The past doesn't matter. I will erase my memory sometime, and it won't exist. When I die, that's the end of it. No nightmarish recurrence of Neitzchean proportions. What's done no longer exists." And you are probably right. But what if you're not right all the way. What if consciousness still goes on, perhaps to the future of worldy bodies. Would it not be worth it, to help those future bodies? Help them at all costs. The important thing that first must be found, is of course truth and direction, because without those things, how do you know what is the right thing? If you don't know exactly how people rebirth, or whether time goes forward or backward, stays on Earth, etc. how do you know whether investing your energies in Earth's climate is the best course of action? You don't but you hazard a guess, you hazard a guess that conscious entities will continue to spawn on Earth, and you try to give those entities a good shot of it. You ask yourself, if I was trapped on Earth forever, even though I might forget painful memories, would I want to go through painful memories over and over if I never get anywhere? answer being, no. Thus, one idea is gravitated towards, and I ain't saying a new world order, but some degree of unity in the species. A truly unified species don't need no rules, don't need no new world order, we all look out for the overall best interest and wisest choices using wholly rational and verifiable logical axioms. Now what's that got to do with Hegel, well it all pertains to the whole "chasing after one idea" kind of thing, which is a behavoiral axiom and property in of itself.

It all boils down to behavoiral axioms. Einstein was soaring but what is so grand about a bird? What is really profoundity but the feeling it gives of great heights. All things are boiled down to their axioms, einsteins "grandness" really boils down to superman revolving around the sun and star trek episode of alternate realities being generated at or close to warp drive. All things boil down to the basic axioms. The nature of equations is to be long, a leaf blowing in the wind is a simple idea, yet the physics code to generate the equivalent movement pattern would be an enormous labor of love. We philosophers don't give physicists enough credit, sure they might be wrong about things but they give it an honest effort. All we do is sit on our asses and imagine reality in easy word and image concepts divorced from their imperfect mathematical approximations.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

You put some time into that and it is appreciated. I do not find much there to comment on. I don't notice a great deal of relationship to Hegelian idealism. It would be helpful, at least in relation to my posts, to try to keep the focus on the dominant idea. The thread's title spells it out, at least generally. However, and with that said, feel quite free to write whatever you desire to.
I talk, God speaks
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Rod wrote:Kant is a metaphysician, but because he [figuratively] shot metaphysics in the foot, he gets categorised as a Rationalist. So who in the modern era has represented metaphysics in terms of qualifying for the front rank? In my opinion only Hegel makes the grade; he is the sole modern example of what metaphysics is about. I discount Schopenhauer as a great metaphysician. So, though deficiencies predominate, Hegel keeps metaphysics’ flame alight. And that is a big plus. It might be the only plus, but philosophy would be poorer were Hegel to be dismissed as your criticisms suggest he should.

To be balanced in your assessment you should acknowledge the difficulty of finding metaphysical logic and articulating a definitive metaphysic, which Hegel aspired to do. Since logic’s etymology is distinctly metaphysical, someone has to represent metaphysics. We cannot have mystics [who bear witness to the logos] representing metaphysics, so let us be grateful for Hegel.
Copped from another thread but relevant in this one.

The articulation of a 'metaphysics', and the application of metaphysical notions as 'truths' to the life lived (let's say the 'existential') is terribly fraught and dangerous. And yet it has to be done. It stands as possible (and here I'd call attention to the absolutism suggested by this forum itself as a response to the possibility of a universal absolute) that it will be carried out well or badly, or partially and completely, and yet it has to be done.

What is potentially interesting in this reference to Hegel is the comparison to the application of a defined metaphysic which is not only implied (here in GF) but is implied and required by every defined religious-philosophical position. So, it is a question of clarification of premises.

We might say that the actuality of the present (the way things are in our present) is an incomplete reflection of a metaphysical spirit. We are incomplete metaphysical representatives. In one way or another, and despite differering perspectives, one notices (again if one speaks of this forum) the desire to sharply define a metaphysic, and then to orient/reorient the life lived in relation to the definition.
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Similarly, Pam, to participate 'genuinely' in a conversation revolving around Hegelian metaphysics would require more familiarity with its tenets, and its implications. I don't think that such a deviation is recommended nor would I recommend it to you, given your declared stance. I'd suggest working exclusively with 'If thine eye be single thy whole body will be filled with light'. Nothing else.
Alex, the work is done. Revolving around causes dizziness. Being still is the cure.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

A fine choice I think for an individual. And when the individual declares 'This is the choice I make', and 'Here are my reasons' [ ... ], the conversation comes to an end. When the declaration is made, silence ensues. You say 'still'. It is the same thing really.

I am less interested in the specificity of your choice and much more interested in the larger question of How choices are made, and What a choice is a response to. Therein lies - as I understand it - the metaphysical implications.

It is interesting to note that, let us say with ancient Indian civilisation as described in ancient writings about civilisation and its organisation, that all dimensions of life were considered and theorised. The role and place of a sage or priest or renunciant was recognised, understood, allowed and certainly appreciated (if such a word could be used). But similarly were the activities of each and of all varnas, as well as the role of the government or organising structure, the military and trader class and their function in relation to the whole.

Thus, the totality of the society (by my example) is visualised and thus a larger conversation can (and should) occur. It is presented only as an illustration of the scale of the 'human problem' as it were.

I have no argument against your choices. How could I? But I am less interested in your subjective choices and more concerned for larger issues which, in my mind, are in many senses very much more important. Your only references are Buddhist doctrine and some selections from Christian doctrine, and these are processed through your subjective mill as it were, and extruded as a Teaching. This cannot be, and should not ever be, absolutised except as in relation to your own subjective person.

The philosophical conversation, and the one that impinges on and in a sense directs Western ideation, is larger than your subjectively-defined concerns.
I talk, God speaks
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Alex: I am less interested in the specificity of your choice and much more interested in the larger question of How choices are made, and What a choice is a response to. Therein lies - as I understand it - the metaphysical implications.
This thread is about "explicit absolute truths" not choices.
It is interesting to note that, let us say with ancient Indian civilisation as described in ancient writings about civilisation and its organisation, that all dimensions of life were considered and theorised. The role and place of a sage or priest or renunciant was recognised, understood, allowed and certainly appreciated (if such a word could be used). But similarly were the activities of each and of all varnas, as well as the role of the government or organising structure, the military and trader class and their function in relation to the whole.
What explicit absolute truth produced the above understanding?
Thus, the totality of the society (by my example) is visualised and thus a larger conversation can (and should) occur. It is presented only as an illustration of the scale of the 'human problem' as it were.
On what explicit absolute truth would this vision and conversation be of/from?
I have no argument against your choices. How could I? But I am less interested in your subjective choices and more concerned for larger issues which, in my mind, are in many senses very much more important. Your only references are Buddhist doctrine and some selections from Christian doctrine, and these are processed through your subjective mill as it were, and extruded as a Teaching. This cannot be, and should not ever be, absolutised except as in relation to your own subjective person.
The metaphorical body full of light or emptiness is not doctrine or subjective experience, it points to the truth of identity.
The philosophical conversation, and the one that impinges on and in a sense directs Western ideation, is larger than your subjectively-defined concerns.
Alex, read your posts carefully. Subjectively-defined concerns is your MO.

We either want the truth of our identity or we do not. Have you found yours? If so, reveal it. If not, then any model you propose for 'how to live' is founded on delusion.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 5:05 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Pam wrote:We either want the truth of our identity or we do not. Have you found yours? If so, reveal it. If not, then any model you propose for 'how to live' is founded on delusion.
Heh heh. Yes, I am aware of the 'delusion' argument. Different folks trot it out in different ways.

With full respect of you and your person I have nonetheless concluded that, essentially, you are a religious zealot. I might call you a 'monk' (or nun) or renunciant and in this specific sense locate your activity and your vision within a subjective endeavour.

I cannot and I do not locate myself nor ideation (as ideal) and certainly not philosophy and very certainly not governance and all other terraqueous endeavors within the limited scope that, for you, is your specific choice. I also accept that you do not see your understructure of understanding as a 'choice' but rather as a description of 'reality'.

I also recognise, though it takes form in different argumentation and comes from different personalities, that the forum is in essence one that wishes to define itself within and in accord with these limited 'zealous' definitions. The participants in that sort of conversation (talking to a wall, endlessly, to put it sardonically) enjoy it, relish it, and I reckon gain something from it. They also seem, like you, to define it as the most important conversation for the enlightened sort, and their definitions of 'enlightenment' revolve around that base. I do not reject the endeavour or the focus, but I see it as incomplete. In my posts I attempt (am attempting) to define a wider field.

Explicit absolute truths - it is very true - is a demanding statement, this I admit. Since you feel and since you understand that you, Pam, function within 'explicit absolute truths' I have no argument with you. I certainly will not debate the issue with you. What I can say is that I am interested in exploring other and different dimensions of the question and problem as I understand it.

I think that some aspect of a pathway to understanding how definitions of 'absolute truth' could function 'on the ground' as it were in larger, social and cultural arenas, has been expressed so far in this thread. Your contributions do not, to me, seems to make much sense, though again I respect your choices.

The final concern or element is the term 'religious' and also 'metaphysic'. A metaphysic implies a response (to it) and this I would define as religious. We must live in accord with our understanding of what the world is and what it 'asks of us' in this sense. You have to understand that some of my background and interest lies in attempting to understand the medieval worldview, and this epoch was one in which 'metaphysic', as defined, as understood, was applied in all domains. I see this as inevitable - necessary. Yet we do not seem now to know how to do that. We are in a sense separated from the possibility of a religious definition that functions globally (I mean globally in our consciousness). Hegel, insofar as I understand his vision, attempts to bring a metaphysical concept down and into the world. It is a sophisticated, and a quite elaborate and difficult, vision.
I talk, God speaks
Locked