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

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man. [Collins Concise]
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod wrote:the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man. [Collins Concise]
Thanks Rod. The reason I asked you for your definition of nature is to clarify how it fits into your metaphysic of finding 'causes that work'/the 'design of creation / the plans that precede appearances.' I assume from your premise of absolute idealism that it is safe to insert the word 'absolute' into your metaphysic quote: 'finding (absolute) causes that work'/the '(absolute) design of creation / the (absolute) plans that precede appearance. Assuming I am accurate in my insertion of 'absolute' into your thought on man and control, cause and creation, I present to you these thoughts for consideration:

Perhaps you've heard the wisdom nugget 'the eye cannot see itself' or 'the scissor cannot cut itself' that when applied in the context of this post reveals the absolute truth that because consciousness is caused, it cannot find its cause. Is that not what absolute idealism is attempting to do? To find, by way of idea that is caused of causes unknown, the absolute cause of idea? Put another way, is the absolute idealist not trying to control that which is already in control?
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Cheers Pam. Let us start with Absolute Truth and absolutely true. I follow you but capitalisation would clearly state your meaning.
"... consciousness is caused, it cannot find its cause." That statement is a truth about a phenomenon. Consciousness is not a Truth. It may be an aspect of a Truth. A Truth has to have possess logic. We are being analytical and are not studying any particular Truth.

Absolute Idealism is about Absolute Ideas. It can reach the creative cause, detail it's components and why they interact, but the creative cause as a whole is a mystery. Absolute Idealism is like mysticism in wishing to purely observe and understand the where-for-all of creation. Control has nothing to do with its mission.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cheers Rod,
Rod: Let us start with Absolute Truth and absolutely true.

Why not just what is logically true in contrast with what is not logically true, aka a belief?
I follow you but capitalisation would clearly state your meaning.
"... consciousness is caused, it cannot find its cause." That statement is a truth about a phenomenon. Consciousness is not a Truth. It may be an aspect of a Truth. A Truth has to have possess logic. We are being analytical and are not studying any particular Truth.
Consciousness, like all definitions, is caused. This is a logical truth. I don't know what 'a Truth' is, can you give me an example?
Absolute Idealism is about Absolute Ideas. It can reach the creative cause, detail it's components and why they interact, but the creative cause as a whole is a mystery.
Here you are dividing causation into a whole and not-a-whole which is dualism. Sound logic reveals that concepts (of which Absolute Idealism is composed) has no power to reach anything, never mind the creative cause-Godhead. Why? Because concepts are finite and The Absolute (note I did not say Absolute Truth) is not finite. In Buddhist doctrine, trying to 'finitize' The Absolute or make immanent that which is transcendent is to confuse the relative with The Absolute.
Absolute Idealism is like mysticism in wishing to purely observe and understand the where-for-all of creation. Control has nothing to do with its mission.
I fully understand a philosopher of Absolute Idealism wishing to purely observe and understand the where-for-all of creation. It is however, for the logical reason that the 'creative cause' cannot see itself as a thing or things, a wish that will never be granted. Adding a personal note, it was a metaphorical vision of the 'workings' of Godhead I encountered many years ago that served to launch me into my own desire to purely observe and understand 'God's Mind.' It went something like this: 'spirit forms exploding into spirit forms, light exploding into life, life exploding into light' - its beautiful (seductive) vision of God's ever-moving creation took my breath away (hence my moniker :-).

What I came to realize after years of searching for an absolute language hidden 'beneath' the metaphorical-breath-catcher, which is what I hope to share with you by way of logic, is that no such absolute language exists. By logic, I am obviously not referring to empirical logic but to philosophical or spiritual or intuitive logic. I have found no where in my seeking the language of absolute logic which you claim to be a reality. If indeed it exists, will you speak it to me?

As for mysticism, of my experience it is not about wishing to analyze God's Mind (although one may begin their mystical path with this ego desire) it is about wishing to to be one with the causality or The Absolute or God of the here and now.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Pam. Pam. I have criticised you before for being intellectually lazy, and there is still some of that, but you have opened up about your experience and your query about absolute language is highly relevant so I’ll hanging in there.

I am not going to analysis consciousness like other people enjoy doing here at GF.

You want to know what a Truth is. I have posted the definition of logic; real logos logic, with two Truths on this thread. These two are relatively simple to present, meaning they do not require diagrams. I am not going to start putting up diagrams on this thread, because they require screeds of explanation. The single most helpful Truth is Figure 1.1 the Logic of Political Economy, i.e. the resolution of capitalism—socialism which you can access in the 20% free download at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974

How many times have I said that? Clearly you are not following this thread.

It appears to me that your logic is received logic, i.e. dialectic or objectivity by other names. Then you say, “By logic, I am obviously not referring to empirical logic but to philosophical or spiritual or intuitive logic.” Arthur or Martha, it does not matter. I’ll get to this.

I am not going to begin to argue with the paragraph that begins, “Here you are dividing causation …” If you had bothered to familiarise yourself with my philosophy you might be in a position to know how I reached the Godhead.
'spirit forms exploding into spirit forms, light exploding into life, life exploding into light' - its beautiful (seductive) vision of God's ever-moving creation took my breath away (hence my moniker :-).
This is fully appreciated and enjoyed. I cannot offer an explanation. I think it is profound without need of explanation. I will mention, light features in my explanation for the creative cause.

This is the nugget I will remove from your post:
“…no … absolute language exists.” And you add, “I have found no where in my seeking the language of absolute logic which you claim to be a reality. If indeed it exists, will you speak it to me?”

Excuse me. Where do I say there is a language of absolute logic? Go to Figure 1.1. Go directly to Figure 1.1. Don’t collect the kids. You will find a diagram consisting of four lines and eight words. That is the raw Truth, and raw Truth is stunningly brief, extracted from modern politics. I take pages to explain what it involves, but Truth per se does not involve sentences. Correct, no absolute language exists.

The nature of Truth requires a complete change of perception. Truth is about comprehensive, active connections. A connects to B and B reconnects with A, i.e. yin-yang. When it comes to philosophy one needs to label A and B, describe the nature of the connections and what pertaining to A and B is being connected. My Figure 1.1 diagram is a reworking of yin-yang to get all the labels on board. Idealism brings detail to mysticism and actually goes beyond mysticism. I will go into detail.

I have not seen a mystical theory about culture, but it is [easily] extrapolated from ontology—teleology. From Zen Buddhism I have the impression that mystical acquaintance with being—time is the ultimate achievement. Being—time translates into Idealism’s ontology—teleology. These are fully explicated Ideas, so once Idealism is ‘on-the-job’ you get thorough explanations. What you do not get is in the last line of your post, i.e. oneness with the Absolute.

That fact is mentioned in tomorrow’s essay.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod, patronization does little to advance understanding on any realm of consciousness.

What you call being intellectually lazy, I understand to be the use of the intellect in a bare-boned way to get points of wisdom of emptiness across. For me, simplicity is a profound quality of truth expression. Clearly we have different definitions in this regard, perhaps regarding the very nature of enlightenment. Cheers.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Religion and Absolute Truth

The advent of Absolute Truth means the intellectual end for exoteric religion. Exoteric religion is ‘ordinary religion’ for ordinary believers who have faith and accept what they are told to believe. Exoteric is in contrast with esoteric which concerns mysticism. The intellectual end for exoteric religion means the end of theology and its dualistic equivalents in Islam and Judaism. This does not mean that exoteric religion will very soon fold-up and shuffle off into history, but it should eventually wither away. Reactionaries will resist but resisting absolute ideas is nigh impossible when politics and religion both need absolutes and need to agree on absolutes. Why there should be resistance is interesting but not of prime concern.

The redefining of logic can only happen as a result of the discovery of logic’s etymology: logos. The logos resides deep in the esoteric heartland of religion. Hence the advent of logic means mysticism is open to rational understanding. This does not mean the end of esoteric religion because there is more to the esoteric that esoteric knowledge. For example, there is meditation such that Absolute Mind [previously called God], the logos [the Son] and the Spirit are all intimate experiences.

Here I need to admit my certainty that the Holy Trinity is True. Christianity’s Trinity is a metaphor for the components of the creative cause. I have experience the Trinity in a Big Dream as recorded in Chapter One of my book. The Dream contained unique references to the Trinity. In my systematising God becomes Absolute Mind, the Son is the logos and the Spirit is the World-Spirit that performs a teleological role in history. Including the Christian Trinity, I know the Trinity in three modes. I am not a Christian though I had a Christian upbringing. I have out-grown Christianity / exoteric religion.

People who have left organised religion are not necessarily atheists. Many believe in “some form of higher Being”. Idealism gives substance to this point of view. How religion changes will depend upon what people want, but do not expect the office of the Pope to survive this reformation.

The question people will need to ask themselves is what they want that Idealism does not deliver. Some will want to sing and pray in the old way. Others will want to meditate according to a mystical tradition. Some will want to preach to those who want to be told what is True.

About Catholicism, one matter is an example of exoteric failings. If ever a sect is screwed-up over sexuality it is Catholicism. Sexual abuse of vulnerable youth by priests led to hypocrisy; a failure to honestly respond reflects a paralysed institution. There is no exoteric need nor esoteric reasons for priests to be celibate, but can Catholicism save itself from tradition, obduracy and repeat offending? That is the hopelessness that dogma descends to.

What is dualistic religion? – Religion in the absence of absolute Truths. Dualistic religion reflects the fact that dualistic philosophy has no knowledge of absolutes. Accordingly, religious persons are able to make claims without challenge from philosophical critics. Members of dualistic faiths are unlikely to be influenced by mystical knowledge or appreciate their understanding is metaphoric. Dualistic religions simplify the creative cause to ‘God’ and Christ’s mission is confused with ethics, i.e. “He died for our sins”. Their concerns are dogma, ethics and ritual.

Ethics plays a major role in dualistic religion in lieu of real absolutes. Religion is supposed to be about absolutes and to oblige dualistic religions make ethical strictures into absolutes. The Ten Commandment is the prime example of religious ethics being absolutes. It is very easy for dualistic religions to be authoritarian, but not all are authoritarian. Some religions will tolerate debate / arguments. A slippery slope for religion is becoming liberal. Thereupon they dissolve. The Catholic Church knows that embracing liberalism is fatal and it is keeping its distance by denying and deprecating ethical relativity and relativity in general. This position demonstrates that truth cannot grasp existential conditions to adjudicate on Catholicism’s stance and thus Catholicism is safe from truth. However, relativity is commensurate with reciprocals and the verity of relativity is just the beginning of the comprehensive end.

Christ is the second representation of the logos after the Greek god Apollo. In that context he is the second coming of the logos as metaphor. Apollo was the first evocation as myth. The presentation of the logos as logic is a third and final resurrection. These representations are appropriate to the intellectual level of their age. As the second representation of the logos we can understand Christ’s mission: he was a living symbol of transcendence; after Apollo the myth, Christ was a living logos. With logic we know what transcendence is, therefore in his time, when the logos could not be rationalised, Christ represented transcendence as a symbol.

More interesting is the question of whether Christ intended to be the focus of an expressly dualistic religion? That was the development relevant to his time and unavoidable in his time. Here is Logia 16 from The Gospel According to Thomas. These are the words of a man who knows his mission is duality and duality means divisions i.e. trouble:

Jesus said: Men possibly think I have come to throw peace upon the world and they do not know that I have come to throw divisions upon the earth, fire, sword, war. For there shall be five in a house: three shall be against two and two against three, the father against the son and the son against the father, and they will stand as solitaries.
The scriptural parallels and echoes are Luke. xii, 49 and 51 – 53; Matthew x, 34 – 36.

Those are not the utterances of a man who wished to be remembered as ‘a paragon of virtue’. However, a man who wished to be remembered would have left a written legacy much like The Gospel According to Thomas. Christ therefore is an enigma.

What is non-dualistic religion? It is religion informed about absolutes by Idealism. It is philosophy—religion in agreement on the Trinity.

It is widely believed that all substantial religions and sects share a core set of beliefs. The advent of logic is when this idea hits the road. We are past Catholics and Protestants being murderously or intolerantly opposed, so we wait to see if logic is efficacious in remedying Shia versus Sunni, and logic is the antidote for other religious hatreds.

Another religious divide exists between secularists and the religiously committed. Secularists believe in liberal democracy and they assert liberal values. Idealism has dispelled liberalism and values. Equally, Idealism has eclipsed dualistic religions, leaving both parties annulled. Opinions, values and dogma that were once valid and divisive have been made irrelevant by the transformation of the philosophy—religion landscape.

Idealism dictating to religion is absolute philosophy being the authority it is expected to be. It removes the ground on which doctrinaire puppets expect to stand and it outmanoeuvres conventional minds that uphold dualistic tradition.

The ostensibly religious development that is causing world-wide consternation is Islamic State [IS]. Its’ barbarities are hard to reconcile with religion. Islamic authorities have disowned IS but they cannot disown the fact that Islam is susceptible to being hijacked. An institution that represents absolutes should be beyond manipulation, so manipulation bespeaks insubstantiality. IS is despotism under an absolute umbrella. To reach IS one has to terminate Islam. To terminate Islam one must terminate Christianity and Judaism. To terminate them all one must terminate duality. Hence it is popularly thought there is no magic bullet.

A fully-formed, absolute philosophy has reconciled its logic with the logos and made declarations about the nature of the creative cause. The ultimate concern of religion is the creative cause, so when Idealism has eclipsed religion on this subject change is inevitable; the magical bullet exists.

Were Hegel around, he would see IS doing irreparable damage to Islam. It is the bad news is good news interpretation of events arising from the knowledge that bigger schemes, bigger than individuals invariably are capable of knowing, are always afoot when the men who promise ideal futures pursuit apparent goals. Unanticipated consequences are inherent to one-dimensional human goals regardless of how honest and well-meaning they might be, European unification included.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Dear Pam. You need serious cajoling. For someone who had a wonderful light and life experience like you did, you are not measuring up to the gift. There is Truth and logic in light, just as there is Truth and logic in life. You will find Truth in light in the later part of my Chapter Two.

It is normal when offered a philosophy, to read it before you attempt to critique it, especially when Truth and logic are reinterpreted. Your recent attempt to engage me in argument over dualisms from the depths of your light and life experience or just plain duality is plain dumb. Your attempt to engage me in discussion on consciousness was rebuffed because you know nothing of immanence. Immanence is where logic gets organised. After that comes appearances and relativity, so all you and your friends’ discussions go around and around, and finally go nowhere.

From your post I took the really good point about the Absolute and language.

I see you have started a Topic on Truth and ethics. [I have to assume you mean Truth. You fail to use capitalisation and I know that truth will not deliver transcendence over ethics.] Come back here next Saturday and I will give you and 3-lines-Russell a substantial lesson in ethics and Truth.

There will be a double sized essay next Saturday, then the show is largely over. Perhaps there will be snippets of information to follow, but all the points I can make to promote my metaphysic will have been made. Perhaps Diebert will ask worthy questions and I’ll hang about, but I will not join the commentariat because revisiting consciousness for the umpteen time is not interesting. This means you will not be perturbed by my availability and Genius Forums can continue to under-achieve.

Now get angry and do something constructive, Dear Pam.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod, your judgment of my mysticism has been prejudicial (subjective but believed to be objective) from the get-go. The moment you wrote to me that I had probably used drugs regarding my mystical experiences but was probably too embarrassed to admit it told me you were approaching me from a prejudicial rather than a logical point-of-view.
It is normal when offered a philosophy, to read it before you attempt to critique it, especially when Truth and logic are reinterpreted. Your recent attempt to engage me in argument over dualisms from the depths of your light and life experience or just plain duality is plain dumb. Your attempt to engage me in discussion on consciousness was rebuffed because you know nothing of immanence. Immanence is where logic gets organised. After that comes appearances and relativity, so all you and your friends’ discussions go around and around, and finally go nowhere.
Your philosophy also goes around and around, finally going nowhere. Such is the nature of interpretation/reinterpretation of everything because there is no beginning or ending to or of things or should I say to or of 'thing-ing.' 'Truth' and 'logic' and 'immanence' and 'getting organized' are not excluded from the circle of 'thing-ing.'
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Okay-dokky. Let’s go to work Pam on your experience. The ‘drugs’ suggestion was due to your not opening up about your number One experience, from which you issued edicts about the void being the ultimate Truth and reasoning is circular. Mine was a reasonable proposition [no prejudice] in the circumstances. So, it is fair to say, your experience was completely unexpected, you did not know the nature of your viewpoint and thus I do not think you have got the experience into context. I originally shied away from being analytical, you might not have appreciated that intrusion, but the subject is back on the table.

The void / emptiness that you think is the ultimate experience is in my estimation the peace of transcendence. [It keeps me going.] Light and life were the reciprocals of your existential dichotomy. This is what you transcended – not the void or Reasoning. Light—life are not part of my experience, but they make perfect sense to me.

That leaves your conviction that all intellectualising is circular. Let me assure you that my philosophy is not chasing its tail. From one political Truth I progress to immanence. From immanence I find the creative cause. The reciprocal of this ontology is teleology, so I go there. The actuality that ontology—teleology explains is culture. With culture race has a taxonomy / ‘race has a place’ so I get busy about demolishing anti-racism, which I seriously need to do to maintain ethics is wrong. No round and round there. The message it does contain is: race is harder to contextualise than the creative cause! Who would think you need to straighten-out dualistic religion, then find determinism in history before it was possible to get race into perspective?
there is no beginning or ending to or of things or should I say to or of 'thing-ing.' 'Truth' and 'logic' and 'immanence' and 'getting organized' are not excluded from the circle of 'thing-ing.'
Your experience presented life as constant regeneration – same set, different actors – life is repetition. You experience contained order and that was due to ‘an order’. What do you think was behind the insight you took to be everything? What ‘invisible thing’ was creating your ‘apparent thing’? – Actually as I write this I see a great example of the Idealist dictum that “the ultimate is Ideas’. – What Truth / design was responsible for this vision in the first place. Something had to pre-exist [as the setting] for your private viewing. The void cannot generate this wonder. The void simply ‘is’ and is a consequence of how creation is generated. And there is Reason behind your light and life experience as I told you yesterday. I repeat: there is Reason / logic / Truth in light. These ‘things’ precede your circle of things. If you take the trouble to become familiar with my metaphysic you will be obliged to agree.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Preamble: This essay is 3003 words. The length of previous essays was generally 1300 words. For coherence it is necessary to presented this overview of teleology in toto rather than in two Parts.

Dialectics and Determinism

This essay is ambitious. It is an abridgment of my teleology. With a minimum of detail, it weaves together four themes: dialectics, determinism, democracy and geopolitics. It endeavours to afford the reader a transcendent perspective of history. Missing from the detail is the key ontological Truth contained in Figure 1.1. The logic of political economy. [It is available in the 20% free download of my metaphysic. To get the most from this essay I recommend familiarity with Figure 1.1. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/470974 ]
Entering into teleology without this ontologically crucial Truth is doing Idealism back-to-front. The beauty of teleology is the comparative simplicity of matching abstract theory with historic fact. If there is insufficient detail to grant a grand perspective, the reader will hopefully treat this article as an overview.

There is an idea that at anytime and anywhere someone could discover absolute Truth. The reality is: the opportunity to find Truth has only existed with the maturation of capitalism since 1960’s - 70’s, only Western politics discloses the key Truth, [with a lot of work still to be done] and only an Idealist would find the key. Access to the Absolute is constrained to an occasion when a seminal absolute Truth is subtly legible. “Occasion” and “legible” translate into teleology and ontology, respectively. The seminal Truth had to emerge from an historical development.

The logic of political economy is “liberalism without values”. Liberalism is values, so subtle insight into liberalism, to find the political equivalent of the logic of Special Relativity, involves going deeper than ideology to the metaphysical ‘bones’ on which liberal political economy works. Detection of a political Truth avers a history behind its realisation. What may be called ‘upheavals that preceded liberalism’ is perception of deep developments in Western history that facilitated liberalism, then Truth.

The logic of political economy is the only objectivity-related Truth that can free us from our fixation on truth and ethics. The catch – 22 is that truth and ethics are the road Europeans have figuratively travelled to find relief from truth and ethics! It is necessary for us to experience dualistic blundering and intellectually grow through these experiences so that we can appreciate Truth. Associated with political economy is democracy. This Truth is not sufficiently intricate to illuminate logic nor sufficiently vital to be an historical vehicle.

To reiterate, because humanity’s rational connection to the Absolute hinges on one Truth, philosophy needs a major political expression of Truth to effect a “beachhead” on foreign terrain. This first Truth had to put dualistic ideas to flight, i.e. establish truth is not Truth, etc., and must strongly suggest its “pedigree”. The logic of democracy does neither.

The resolution of political economy involves the capitalism – socialism dualism transmuting into a benign dichotomous interaction. This famous dualism is also a dialectic. Dialectics are dualistic conflicts that engender the evolution of consciousness. Three dialectics have facilitated understanding of truth and ethics to the point where their transcendence is possible. The three dialectics repeat a metaphysical pattern.


Dialectics
Western consciousness has evolved through politics. Politics is where ideas most readily evolve. Dialectical movement is political replication of conventional, dialectical discourse. What is commonly called logic is really, dialectics. At a personal level it is disputation as per debate. In politics, it is unyielding antagonism. This type of politics advances consciousness.

In my teleology, Hegel’s dialectical movement has concrete application. My contribution is a theory [called Enhancement] on what gives a society the impetus to develop. So Hegel explains the dialectical dramas and I explain what joins the one dialectic to another.

Strangely the Dark Ages did not interrupt the evolution of consciousness. The Dark Ages were a reapportioning of political power from Roman emperor to a multiplicity of despots. Culture declined but duality seriously began when Western civilisation recovered under Christian tutelage. The last millennium has seen various forms of [moral] idealism take arms against authority. These battles were great dialectical moments to which the individuals involved were oblivious. Across these conflicts, an immanent cause was progressively expressed. Also from these battles came democracy. We should be conversant with this history, but it is beyond the capacity of truth to grasp the influences that cause determinism.

The vital teleological moments in Western history are the Reformation, the revolt against absolute monarchy [the English Civil War and the French Revolution] and the modern age of industry and ideology. Each of these events involved a dialectic. Chronologically the dialectics were: Catholics versus Protestants, monarchists versus merchants and nonconformists, and capitalists versus socialists. While the participants were in different guises, metaphysically the argument / dialectic / fight is the same one. The recurring fight was moral idealism versus intransigent authority. Moral idealism versus authority is not the insight of significance. Sapience lies in the transcendence of the third dialectic; capitalism versus socialism needed to be recast as capitalism—socialism and affirmed by a logic-claiming metaphysic.

In the above dialectics, ethics are persistently relative, but that was not apparent to any party. Catholics do not recognise their stance as relative because they are the parent church. Protestants held Catholicism to be wrong, hence their ethics were wrong and ethics were not compromised. Absolute monarchs did not recognise the legitimacy of their opposition because they had a divine mandate to be absolutist. Revolutionaries saw the issue as monarchical failure – it was not about ethics. Communists did not recognise opposition because their ideology is absolutist. Capitalists judged communists to be idealists without realistic ethics. Western consciousness has evolved via violence over ethics-based, pseudo-absolutes.

It is comprehendible to objectivists that ethics is at the heart of each controversy and ethics is relative, yet for objectivists each dialectic is unique. Conversely, an Idealist sees successive, inevitable conflicts. Contraries occur because reality is dichotomous. Duality puts an edge on contraries. Because of a factor I call “Enhancement”, the antagonists in successive disputes are more intellectually “pronounced” – their polemic is more aspirational. Consult the Putney Debates of the Roundheads of the English Civil War for proto-democrats, proto-socialists and proto-conservatives; the third dialectic was nascent in the second. Ideation elaborated political poles till they approximated the immanent cause of dualistic conflict. This determinist process offered up a clue in the later 20th century and Idealism became definitive.


Democracy
Absolute Idealism defines democracy as a Truth. Idealism’s definition has no contentious values such as equality and freedom. Being free of ideals, an Idealist is aware that the advent of democracy had little to do with democracy, justice or reason.

Associated with the rejection or over-throw of the ruling authority in the first two dialectics there was a widening of opportunities to express opinions. Open discussion benefited from conflicts that were economic in origin, beginning with indulgences. Initial conflicts attracted non-conformist religious elements. In earlier times religion was the only avenue for self-expression and one had to be brave to openly express dissenting religious opinions. You can offer me peasant revolts as examples of contempt for authority, but the problem here is that these uprising did not involve organised labour with a written program; they were blunt demands from miserables that the authorities would not entertain. By the time of the French Revolution there were political programs written by philosophers, thanks to the Reformation.

Industrialisation and its labour problems are markedly different from an angry agrarian sector bringing mayhem to town. Probably readers have an opinion about trade unions, but I doubt it is historical. For the evolution of consciousness trade unions were indispensable. This was worker democracy before universal suffrage. Democracy came on the coat-tails of industrialisation. It was earned through confrontation in the modern workplace by organised labour and sacrifice in W. W. I. Unionism took pressure out of capitalism versus socialism; it is a feature of evolved capitalism regardless of the fact it attracts socialists. Without unionism a communism antithesis would be widespread; unionism modified the industrial dialectic.

A feature of the 20th century that Idealism can add its perspective on, is the withering of Christianity. Christian sects had little to contribute to industrial relations. Sects were reluctant to take sides because there was godless socialism on one-side and mercenary capitalists on the other. Irrelevance to this existential question lead to Christianity loosing its congregations. It became appropriate not to mix politics and religion because a congregation shared divergent views. If it could not contribute to the ideology question, Christianity could not contend that it was at the centre of the community. Anyway, science was overcoming superstitions and myths, and Christianity was captive to its virgin birth and miracles.

The mingling of individuals from the industrial revolution onwards took the edge off sectarianism. Eventually ‘mixed marriages’ in the religious sense did not matter and committed Christians became the exception. Capitalism versus socialism and its liberal answer emasculated a religious divide that was markedly hostile and occasionally murderous. In this manner the West got beyond sectarianism and became post-Christian.

Liberal democracy is the situation Europeans are born into. Because liberal democracy only requires the observance of values, we assume anyone and everyone can ‘do it’. Failure to appreciate the history that produced this ‘given’ is due to duality having no appreciation of historical development. An example of our separation from the thinking of earlier times is dramatists putting our values into the mouths of characters from any period.

The issue that discredits liberal democracy is anti-racism. The main principles of liberal democracy are equality and freedom of expression. Moralists insist that racists be denied freedom of expression because they deny equality. This objection goes to the heart of liberal democracy. Can truth clear up this dilemma? – Might pigs fly; it is a major contradiction. Duality and democracy are fundamentally unreconciled. Democracy is a political Holy Grail that the West has not actually found.

It pleases fate to test our ideas with calamitous political situations. Refugee immigration has precipitated a ‘racial nationalist’ versus ‘liberal idealist’ dialectic. Ostensibly the issue is humanitarianism versus callous disregard. In actuality, and consequent to humans being subject to Ideas, the issue is idealism versus reality. The way the mainstream press disparages the so-called ‘far right’, the issue will be polarised over liberal democracy. Liberals forget that the contradiction between equality and freedom nullifies their democracy; its credentials are in conflict on precisely this matter. The spectre of fascism will ensure that the issue is distorted, unless Idealism negates liberalism.

After generating conflicting ideologies in response to the industrial revolution, ethics is suspect. There has to be a climactic showdown with ethics and it cannot be bigger than “racial nationalism versus liberalism” with its hysteria over racism. It is the present-day dialectical. It is a futile dialectic – there is no dualistic resolution. Thereby duality becomes degenerate.

Note that truth in politics is ammunition that political factions use against their opponents. Political truths are ‘points’ barbed with partisan construal. Their impact relies to some degree on the person that is launching the ‘points’. Thus political truth is contingent and subordinate to ideological spin. Improvement in politics depends upon the removal of ethics, and that can only be achieved by the intercession of Truth. In science, truth is a tiger behind a ‘value-free’ fence. In politics, truth is a football for values. We cannot intellectually evolve through science, but we can evolve through contrary politics.


Geopolitics
[This section is not in my book. It applies the above Western experience to Moslem countries to cast their predicament in the light of the West’s odyssey.]

The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. The advocates for invasion seriously under-estimated the ethnic, sectarian and regional political fault-lines that make Iraq a hazardous place. A fig-leaf for the adventure was the liberation and democratisation of the country. The idea that democracy could be introduced to a country by military means was completely dispelled. Further to their failure to do their homework on Iraq, the advocates for invasion demonstrated common Western ignorance of the turbulent history that preceded liberal democracy. The simplism of liberalism, i.e. “We are all equal”, led Western leaders to expect democracy to be easily adopted.

Arabs that wish their country was democratic are confronted by the absence of widespread industrialisation and the concomitant inability to transition to democracy via the capitalism versus socialism dialectic. Putting aside authoritarian rulers, the opportunity to adopt democracy is thwarted by entrenched Islamic interests whose ideas are more critical than those of dictators. A dire dialectic is a confrontation between secularism and Islam. This is a futile dialectic because secularism versus Islam cannot be resolved in a dualistic environment.

Arab culture cannot leap from Islamic pseudo-absolutes to democratic partisanship / factionalism. When Islamists say, “Democracy is incompatible with Islam”, they mean political relativity is incompatible with their absolutes. Also, Islam is about submission to God, so ‘freedom’ to choose God, values and /or an ideology offends Islamist’s priorities. The appropriate response is, “Islam is incompatible with real absolutes” – the issue must be fought and won intellectually, and with that stance the West can stay out of this mess.

Industrialisation emasculated Christianity. This cannot happen in Moslem countries. Perhaps newly democratic Tunisia will prove these assertions wrong and be a leading example to Arabs, but Tunisia is unstable, and Iranian theocracy supports my expectation that clerics will occupy political roles and prolong the wait for the inevitable.

Definitive Idealism changes the philosophy—religion landscape as duality is annulled by genuine absolutes. It is the only avenue of escape from a hopeless future.


Summary
The above sketches an historical progression in which ethics is a vainglorious actor, contradicting its absolute pretensions as it serves rival parties in the West’s foremost controversies. Successive conflicts over authority and economics elaborated the poles of difference until an immanent cause was expressed and consciousness could advance from idealism to Idealism.

The evolution of consciousness is largely, but not entirely, about dialectics. The issue common to three world-historical dialectics is economics. Conflicts over money resolved the age-old question of, “Who or what can be entrusted with authority?” – The absolute answer to the question about authority is: Ideas.

To be relevant history needs a philosophy of history that transcends the dualistic period. Inability to make history germane to the living moment has led to mealy-mouthed liberalism denying European exceptionalism. Ethics is ‘the culprit and biggest hypocrite in history’. It cannot connect to the violence it generates; it cannot admit that our civilisation is based on violence of its making. The liberal democracy it is associated with breeds delusions and its basic values contradict. Liberals are not concerned because the issue only involves racists – which is ethics reinforcing ethics. Ethics wishes to take credit for the example Europeans set for social and intellectual evolution – Europeans cannot receive credit … it must be offered up to ethics. The West has struggled with a hypocrisy that has gone from disgusting to degenerate.

Dialectical disputes should be avoided, but the means to the West’s deliverance from duality has been duality, so violence was inevitable. Moslem countries cannot repeat the European route to deliverance and are advised to avoid dialectics, especially futile ones.


The Bigger Story
The progression explained above is religious; we are always in the “hands” of an Absolute Will; a World-Spirit is abroad regardless of lives lost. Teleology is about finding these “hands”. The attaining of absolute knowledge started with Greek philosophy and after a thousand years it seriously faltered with the Dark Ages. As said, the Dark Ages were not a complete disaster. Over the last long millennium, from 950 A.D. at the earliest, philosophy regained its importance. It was nurtured and used by Christianity until science effected its change of mind. As the quest for objective truth and moral rectitude, philosophy advanced political agendas. The objectivist mainstream eventually made itself distinct from a metaphysical backwater that has not advanced since Hegel. In actual fact, objectivist philosophy is also a backwater. Then suddenly metaphysics surges under the impetus of a new logic. That success was inherent in logic and history, and it is spiritual.

Have we seen this before in history? – No, but we can enjoy an allegory. Allegorically teleology compares with wandering in the wilderness before entering the promised land. “Forty years in the wilderness” is a myth. But 2500 years of philosophical gestation is real.


Addendum for Genius Forums
The above is my swan song. I will be around to answer my critics. I want to thank Genius Forums for the opportunity to present my wares. I cannot prove my metaphysic is absolute Truth, but enough theory has been laid down to nullify duality.

In the above I dealt to ethics and briefly I dealt to political truth. Earlier, in the essay on the Special Theory of Relativity I dealt to objectivity but I did not make a point of elaborating on the consequences of Truth eclipsing truth.

Just as ethics cannot study ethics, truth cannot study itself. Just as ethics cannot recognise its relativity, truth cannot recognise its relativity. The logic of the Special Theory of Relativity was necessary to explain and integrate the strange occurrences in the Special Relativity. Left to truth to explain, Special Relativity is not explained. Special Relativity is by objective standards irregular and irrational natural behaviour. Idealism’s success in revealing the logic of Special Relativity implies academic pursuit of Truth via truth is futile. All dualistic theorising about esoteric / absolute topics is likewise in vain.

This website is committed to “Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment”. My Topic has revealed how to find non-dualistic, ultimate reality. To justify continuing to use dualistic conjecture to theorise on esoteric topics, members of Genius Forums have to deny this teleology and / or my interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity. It is ‘good’ to challenge you. I detect little stomach for the real thing and a preference for argumentation.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hello Rod, thanks for all that effort to explain and augment your thesis. It turns out to be rather difficult to pinpoint the exact point where our paths in terms of thoughts are parting. Certainly I don't think historical "fact" or politics, let alone "democracy" are relevant. Your diagram Fig. 1.1 seems rather obscure and not relevant to any fundamental thought. It's interesting in the sense that it does what I feel modernity is attempting all the time: to make everything about politics, everything about desire, politics or economy of desires. All these emotional exchange rates. Even philosophy and the absolute is becoming systematized in similar exchanges and prose. But I suppose it was inevitable.

But I do like your ambition and some of your exploration of fundamentals and the transcendental you seem to invoke. But where exactly do I start differing, I keep wondering? Although I don't take your conviction very serious that any diagram, scientific theory, economy or politics of any kind convey any type of higher truth. It seems to me more dualism and objectivity but then loaded with some private intuitive meaning by you and only you. But it's still not the core difference here.

The biggest difference seems to appear when you say: "Central to life is Mind: the organising principle that confers complexity. It was not created by lineal thinking and it is not amenable to lineal thinking". It's a metaphysical statement without much of a backing to it. How do you know it's central? What "life" do you mean? And are all organising principles "mind" even the movement of stars? Aren't you just reinventing God, residing beyond our mortal thought? If you mean more like "Tao" then what exactly is "organizing" to Tao?

So at the core I strongly doubt your definitions of life and mind, like I do with Hegel. It seems you start already from a position which has many consequences for where you eventually will arrive. So a nice try to tie some things together which I doubt are that much related at all. For that reason I wish you success with your publication and hope you'll sincerely practise the dialectic with anyone offering valid critiques. For me it's hard to supply more than I did.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Diebert. Thanks for the reply. I think we have a procedural matter to deal with in a friendly way. Of course you can make any intelligent comment you wish, and you have made intelligent comment, but there is a bigger issue on the table: a change to the definition of logic.

As a private individual you can say what you like, but as the resident leading mind at Genius Forums you might care to acknowledge a challenge has been laid down that you have not risen to. A philosophy that wants to change logic has to be squarely dealt with because philosophy is logic.

Your introspection is praiseworthy. I can work with it.

I think you have based your judgments on what I have written here at Genius Forums and the freely available portion of my metaphysic. In which case that is four examples of logic. If you had read the whole philosophy I believe the whole thrust of the metaphysic would allay your “reserve”. I do not think you are sceptical, but you do not want to commit when perhaps you should say, “Rod’s metaphysical logic is superior to received logic”. Kindly say how much of the metaphysic you have read.

Yes, Figure 1.1 is obscure, it is not what one would expect as a foundational Truth, from a dialectical / conventional perspective. Pam put the matter as succinctly as she could when she said [something like], “The Absolute has no language”. At the time she was accusing me of suggesting the Absolute could be spelt out in words. The problem is not words. The problem is sentences. Sentences have a subject. The Absolute has no subject – no focus. This matter is addressed in my essay entitled, “The Methodology of Non-duality”.

The only way the vital Truth can be conveyed, before intellectualising begins, is with a diagram that puts together parts and connections. Think of Figure 1.1 as yin—yang rearranged to express detail. The vital Truth is amazingly brief. I will elaborate.

Pam and I have had a private conversation. I told her that in my estimation she had an absolute experience expressed as light—life. Here is Pam’s experience:
Adding a personal note, it was a metaphorical vision of the 'workings' of Godhead I encountered many years ago that served to launch me into my own desire to purely observe and understand 'God's Mind.' It went something like this: 'spirit forms exploding into spirit forms, light exploding into life, life exploding into light' - its beautiful (seductive) vision of God's ever-moving creation took my breath away (hence my moniker :-).
In this experience is an existential dichotomy; light—life. Though light—life is a Truth, Pam’s problem is that she cannot access the logic of her experience so it remains her private mysticism. Pam makes statements on the basis of her experience. Some she gets right and some she gets wrong, because Dear, Dear Pam will not research her experience. I told her [twice, I believe,] Truth is in light and that would help her to get some meaning from this experience. One thing we all can take from her experience was how briefly she explained it. It took just two lines per se. Two lines barely hint as the enormity of the experience for her, but two lines are sufficient for me to get the metaphysical bones. Do not be surprised by the brevity of Truth.

Homework for Diebert: If you accept yin—yang is True and the Absolute has no subject or focus, and values are not absolutes, what will a political absolute Truth look like? I think you have accepted dichotomies because of their inherent dynamism, so what else do you need to produce an answer / Idea that works rather than ends as a static, truth-type conclusion? In other words, your own words included, “What would you think constitutes ‘fundamental thought’? Appreciate that ‘though’ is not just ‘idea’, but active ‘Idea’, and you have four examples of active Ideas.

Yin—yang is itself very brief: yin is in yang and yang is in yin. Absolute Truths are phenomenally brief. They are active entities. Sentences cannot convey Truth. As you have read in my metaphysic, sentences can describe every element of a Truth, but they cannot assemble the elements into a whole such as a diagram achieves. Reflect on how many pages it takes to analysis Figure 1.1. There is a load of implications arising from the 4 lines and eight words of Figure 1.1 and done replace the Figure. What have I failed to say about political economy or democracy that is essential and not contained on the Figures?

I don’t see desire in Fig. 1.1. It is desire-free. Substantiate “All these emotional exchange rates”. I strongly maintain that Idealism is flavourless. Perhaps not my commentary, but certainly all Truths are well removed from colour and flavour.

If I have to guess an answer to, “where exactly do I start differing”, I think you expect something heightened, like Pam’s experience, rather than something subtle. Here is the germ of it:
it seems to me more dualism and objectivity but then loaded with special meaning by you and only you. But it's not the core difference here.
The great break through is when a dualism approximates a dichotomy, hence capitalism vs. socialism, moderated by liberalism, becomes capitalism—socialism. The breakthrough has to happen with a Truth that is near-as-damn objective. Only then can we get hold of the rationally vital key concept: logic – the logic of a Truth. Note above how remote Pam’s experience is from any chance of finding its logic. There may be a multitude of mystical experiences, but until we get logic we are lost, and I see only capitalism—socialism having explicit abstractions sufficient to reveal a yet more abstract logic.

In regards to special meaning, I have coined only one word: Enhancement, [capital “E”]. That relates to teleology and my meaning is well defined. Please be explicit if you think I am making words turn corners.
The biggest difference seems to appear when you say: Central to life is Mind: the organising principle that confers complexity. It was not created by lineal thinking and it is not amenable to lineal thinking. It's a metaphysical statement without much of a backing to it. How do you know it's central? What "life" do you mean? And are all organising principles "mind" even the movement of stars? Aren't you just reinventing God, residing beyond our mortal thought? If you mean more like "Tao" then what exactly is "organizing" to Tao?
Support for the italic section lies in my explication of the creative cause, in the later part of Chapter Two. Yes, the stars are organised by Mind – General Theory of Relativity. Ask me for the logic of the General Theory. That will answer the God question. Of course I endorse “Tao”. You need to read Chapter Two for the last question.

If you had read the whole metaphysic you would not ask, “Aren't you just reinventing God …”. This tells me you want something “heroic” rather than “softly, softly, subtle”.
So at the core I strongly doubt your definitions of life and mind, like I do with Hegel. It seems you start already from a position which has many consequences for where you eventually will arrive. So a nice try to tie some things together which I doubt are that much related at all. For that reason I wish you success with your publication and hope you'll sincerely practise the dialectic with anyone offering valid critiques. For me it's hard to supply more than I did.
Come on, use ‘Mind’ for ‘Mind’ so we talk the same language. You are a hard man to please Diebert. Four Truths and no glimmer of something greater than dialectic. You want an intellectual ladder from truth to Truth and you should know that Idealism with logic restarts philosophy. What have I related that is not / are not related?

Well done in stating your doubts. Thank you for your fond wishes. You make aspersions that you need to be examine, but you are a fair interlocutor. Just read on. You know this is not a philosophy you can take or leave. Just be pleased you have got me and not Hegel.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Rod: Pam and I have had a private conversation. I told her that in my estimation she had an absolute experience expressed as light—life. Here is Pam’s experience:
Quote:
Pam: Adding a personal note, it was a metaphorical vision of the 'workings' of Godhead I encountered many years ago that served to launch me into my own desire to purely observe and understand 'God's Mind.' It went something like this: 'spirit forms exploding into spirit forms, light exploding into life, life exploding into light' - its beautiful (seductive) vision of God's ever-moving creation took my breath away (hence my moniker :-).
In this experience is an existential dichotomy; light—life. Though light—life is a Truth, Pam’s problem is that she cannot access the logic of her experience so it remains her private mysticism. Pam makes statements on the basis of her experience. Some she gets right and some she gets wrong, because Dear, Dear Pam will not research her experience. I told her [twice, I believe,] Truth is in light and that would help her to get some meaning from this experience. One thing we all can take from her experience was how briefly she explained it. It took just two lines per se. Two lines barely hint as the enormity of the experience for her, but two lines are sufficient for me to get the metaphysical bones. Do not be surprised by the brevity of Truth.
Dear, Dear Rod :-), allow me to be a little less brief. Encountering the relational-concepts of light exploding into life--life exploding into light triggered intuition of the way of The Absolute in the world of the relative, that of the logic of transcendence. Note that I used the word 'seduction' to describe the effects of the mystical vision of light and life. In order to speak/write the light of the logic of transcendence, there must be a movement past the seduction of being 'drawn into' the darkness of the relative. The light of the logic of transcendence applies to all forms of attachment to idea.
Note above how remote Pam’s experience is from any chance of finding its logic. There may be a multitude of mystical experiences, but until we get logic we are lost,
Everyone has the ability to ‘get’ the logic of transcendence.
and I see only capitalism—socialism having explicit abstractions sufficient to reveal a yet more abstract logic.
And if one follows abstract logic to its highest form? :-)
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Pam. You have not been as explicit as I think you intended to be. "Seduction" is not analysed. I think you are saying one must see past the beatific splendour of the mystical event to find the intellectual content of what has been revealed. The "logic of transcendence" is not expanded upon, nor is the "light of the logic of transcendence" and its illumination of "all forms of attachment to idea(s)". It all seems a bit hurried.

Pam: "Everyone has the ability to ‘get’ the logic of transcendence."
Really? Please spell out this logic. It is not the Truth of what you mean that concerns me, but rather your ability to produce definitions and substantiate this statement. I encourage you to try.

Pam: "And if one follows abstract logic to its highest form?"
One finds logic reconciled with the logos and that is the essential moment of the Truth of light.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Hi Pam. You have not been as explicit as I think you intended to be. "Seduction" is not analysed.
To be focused on the forms and not to intuit their emptiness is to be seduced by their illusory nature.
I think you are saying one must see past the beatific splendour of the mystical event to find the intellectual content of what has been revealed.
The purpose of logic of transcendence is to stop the mind from 'finding' content in form.
The "logic of transcendence" is not expanded upon, nor is the "light of the logic of transcendence" and its illumination of "all forms of attachment to idea(s)". It all seems a bit hurried.
The light (wisdom) of the logic of transcendence 1. explains the reason for attachment to form (belief in an objective/external reality) and 2. is the way attachment to form is released.
Pam: "Everyone has the ability to ‘get’ the logic of transcendence."
Really? Please spell out this logic. It is not the Truth of what you mean that concerns me, but rather your ability to produce definitions and substantiate this statement. I encourage you to try.
Hopefully my definitions above help.
Pam: "And if one follows abstract logic to its highest form?"
One finds logic reconciled with the logos and that is the essential moment of the Truth of light.
And to 'attain to' or realize what is suggested by the metaphor 'the essential moment of the Truth of light' is it not a requirement to be released from attachment to form? How is this accomplished? By using the logic of transcendence.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Hi Pam. I have serious reservations about ‘conversing’ with you on equal terms. I will, but …

Here’s my summary: you do not do research, you do not know what valid inference means, you do not know and respect the power of words and you do not have your feet on the ground.

On any ordinary metaphysical thread you can invent concepts. On this metaphysical thread logic has a very specific definition, so you cannot refer to “the logic of transcendence” without producing a definition for that logic. Does anyone in the world, except yourself, know what this concept is, let alone its definition?

Any mystic and pseudo-mystic can say, as you do: “The light (wisdom) of the logic of transcendence 1. explains the reason for attachment to form (belief in an objective/external reality) and 2. is the way attachment to form is released.”

This is not within the realm of philosophy. I happen to know you are correct and I could say the same, but I am not a mystic and I do not wish to sound like a mystic. Instead I give examples of the relativity of ethics and the failings of truth which are more useful for understanding duality than bald statements about attachment. You do not have a logic. What you have is “Pam’s insight” and you don’t know how to interpret it.

Pam: “The purpose of logic of transcendence is to stop the mind from 'finding' content in form.”
How is this purpose achieved Pam? What have you ‘got’, that opens up ideas to reveal their lack of content? You have got nothing and you inflate your nothing to the biggest of all concepts: logic.

Pam:” The light (wisdom) of the logic of transcendence 1. explains the reason for attachment to form (belief in an objective/external reality) and 2. is the way attachment to form is released.”
In response to my asking: “Really? Please spell out this logic”, we get …
Pam: “Hopefully my definitions above help.” [You are referring to “The light (wisdom) …”]
Oh dear, dear Pam, that is not valid inference. This is woeful if you think it makes sense.

You have an Absolute experience. From it you deduce the Truth of the void and this is the Truth you bang-on about without any study. The void is counterpoised to what is existent. The void is approached via the existent and can only be understood in relation to the existent. To insist upon the voidness of life without contrast to the existent is to be unbalanced. To be unbalanced is to be dualistic … and that, as you know, means you are doomed!

[There is actually a lesson in this.] You will protest, “I have had an absolute experience and you, Rod, agree, so I cannot be doomed”. – The great dualistic religions are begun by men who know the Absolute in some form, but because they cannot transmit their knowledge with WHOLE examples of the Absolute, they engender dualistic faiths. Your light—life dichotomy is too esoteric and personal to illustrate wholeness, let alone voidness. You are safe, Pam. No-one will be going to “The Church of the Great Emptiness”.

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

This is an absolute logic. On this thread there are two substantiations for this logic and you know where to find my metaphysic and further substantiations, but you will not bother.

At the root of your transcendent experience is the above logic. You cannot extract it and I cannot extract it for you. I have had an absolute experience that does not yield the above definition, so that makes my Figure 1.1 ultra-special. This brings me back to what I have recently been banging-on about, in regard to capitalism—socialism being near-as-damn to objectivity. Without any knowledge of Figure 1.1, because Pam does not do research, she thinks this observation is a truth like everything else in philosophy, and by the way, I believe that Diebert got the impression that Figure 1.1 is an objective truth, hence his:
It seems to me more dualism and objectivity but then loaded with some private intuitive meaning by you and only you. But it's still not the core difference here.
The irony here is that Pam comes with no philosophical baggage and Diebert is loaded with so many concepts they prevent him from grasping Ideas, yet they agree on my not being on target. An objectivist can understand Figure 1.1 but does the objectivist, Diebert let us say, ask, “Could an objectivist construct this purported Idea?” No. An objectivist could not construct Figure 1.1 because from the outset it involves giving equal recognition to subjectivity. That sort of subtlety is not native to objectivists [and I was also banging-on about subtlety]. In fact, it is sacrilege to the objectivist fraternity.

The metaphysic begins with Figure 1.1 which is an immanent observation of political economy. The metaphysic takes the logic from this observation and stays immanent, and later validates its logic is immanent.

Finally Pam, you label my phrase, “… the essential moment of the Truth of light …” a metaphor. You diminish and effective denigrate your own holy experience. My sentence was:
One finds logic reconciled with the logos and that is the essential moment of the Truth of light.
An ultimate Idea finds its parent and these are mere words to you, when it pleases you. – I think I have read you elsewhere on the Forum say, “The map is not the terrain”. – Clearly you have no respect for the word “logic” because you affix it to your nonsense, then contradict its supposed importance by joining it to “metaphor”. I will elaborate: if my use of logic is metaphoric, is your “logic of transcendence” metaphoric? – Never mind. Without a philosophical lexicon and respect for words you cannot impress. As said, “Lazy”.

I acknowledge the advantage of critics, rather than no critics. Thank you Diebert and Pam.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Pam Seeback »

Simplicity brings counter to explicitness. Countering is the way of logic. Simplicity is not always a reflection of a lazy spirit. As you thanked me for my 'criticism', I thank you for the opportunity to be your counter. Hopefully the exchanges in this thread will inspire others to think about the contrasting ways of explicitness and simplicity. Cheers.
Rod
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: Explicit Absolute Truths

Post by Rod »

Cheers Pam. Great Spirit.
Locked