Re: Explicit Absolute Truths
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 6:36 am
the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man. [Collins Concise]
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
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:Rod wrote:the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man. [Collins Concise]
Rod: Let us start with Absolute Truth and absolutely true.
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?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.
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 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.
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 :-).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.
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.'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 :-).
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.'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 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.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.'
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.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 :-).
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.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.
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.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?
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?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.
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.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:
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.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 :-).
Everyone has the ability to ‘get’ the logic of transcendence.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 if one follows abstract logic to its highest form? :-)and I see only capitalism—socialism having explicit abstractions sufficient to reveal a yet more abstract logic.
To be focused on the forms and not to intuit their emptiness is to be seduced by their illusory nature.Hi Pam. You have not been as explicit as I think you intended to be. "Seduction" is not analysed.
The purpose of logic of transcendence is to stop the mind from 'finding' content in form.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 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.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.
Hopefully my definitions above help.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: "Everyone has the ability to ‘get’ the logic of transcendence."
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.One finds logic reconciled with the logos and that is the essential moment of the Truth of light.Pam: "And if one follows abstract logic to its highest form?"
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.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.
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”.One finds logic reconciled with the logos and that is the essential moment of the Truth of light.