The Absolute

[analog57]

We must come to a consensus as to what an absolute actually IS.

[1.]Can we all agree that an absolute is totally independent of other things?

[2.] If [1.] is true then things can be dependent on the existence of the absolute but the absolute is not dependent on any-thing.

[3.] Everything that follows from an absolute is dependent on the absolute. There can be "quasi-absolutes" which are dependent on the more independent quasi-absolutes but these quasi-absolutes are not absolutes in the truest sense of [2.].

[4.] Then according to [3.] there can be only one true absolute, which everything else is dependent on. So while an absolute is necessarily perfect, a perfect thing is not necessarily the one true absolute. If it is not, then it is merely a quasi-absolute.

[5.] Because the one true absolute is independent of any-thing it is analogous to the largest possible[all-inclusive] set. According to Russell's and Cantor's paradoxes, the largest possible set cannot exist.

[Jay Ray]

We must come to a consensus as to what an absolute actually IS.

[1.]Can we all agree that an absolute is totally independent of other things?

[2.] If [1.] is true then things can be dependent on the existence of the absolute but the absolute is not dependent on any-thing. ... cannot exist.

- Just as a description/name for the "x" at the logical definition/concept "x = completely independent!" it can exist - we can spell, hear and read the name.

- In the concept of a deep believer - any "holy" Axioma is "absolute" and of course existing. Doubts about the aboluteness are then "impossible" or "unallowed".


- "An/the absolute" suggests a substancial thing, but in fact it seems to me to be only the product of a grammatical transformation (scholastics played this game very humorless with many words):

absolute => the absolute
left => the left

does anyone have an idea, what could be the meaning of "the left" ?? I think, even scholastics avoided this example ;)

So this may be an example, that language can name more than is concrete imaginable - a description without anything described.
Inside a concept parts can be "absolute" - but not "the/an absolute".

[Barrett Pashak]

Viewed as wholly material, reality is the infinite totality of interconnected things, ie. the universe. Viewed as wholly ideal, reality is the infinite totality of interconnected ideas, ie. the absolute. Reality can be seen as either wholly material or as wholly ideal, but never can it be seen as both at the same time. The root of superstition is the attempt to relate the material to the ideal, culminating with the identification of the universe with the absolute. They cannot be related, because they are the same thing perceived in two different ways.

[Leyla Shen]

Hey, I like that, Barrett.

[Barrett Pashak]

Hey, I like that, Barrett.

Thanks!

What intrigues me lately about the absolute is its dynamic quality. It is a tragedy that so many thinkers have construed the absolute as static and passive. It is every bit as active as the universe. The Jews had it right with their term "ruach", which, as Spinoza makes clear (TTP, Pt.1, Chap.1, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/1spnt10.txt), "signifies in Hebrew God's mind or thought", with a clear emphasis on its dynamic, active quality.

[Leyla Shen]

It is a tragedy that so many thinkers have construed the absolute as static and passive.

I must admit, it has been hard of late to tell the materialists from the idealists -- those whom I had thought to be one, looking suddenly like the other. That's the trick to the infinite, though, ain't it? You can see it, in a person's argument.

Ta. I'll check out the link, some time.

[Jay Ray]

Viewed as wholly material, reality is the infinite totality of interconnected things, ie. the universe. Viewed as wholly ideal, reality is the infinite totality of interconnected ideas, ie. the absolute. ... They cannot be related, because they are the same thing perceived in two different ways.

Maybe you're right, but I don't understand your "because" at this point. You can think of materia as a specific configuration of ideas (or "energy") - or ideas as (a symptom of) a specific configuration of materia: for example the complexe structure of the neurons in a brain. In both ways there is relationship between the materia and the ideas and only one basic element, of which the whole material and immaterial "absolute universe" consists.

For me another point is interesting - why do people look for "the absolute"? To find a totally save and stable archimedical point beyond any possibility to doubt?

I think during our lifes we meet different versions of the "absolute" - first we call it "mama" or "mommy", then we see, that our mother is only a part of the world - some of us find another "absolute" called "god(s)" - or more abstract ideologies/principles/laws. Some of us find the absolute, when they experience drugs, etc...

Whats the common thing at this? The "absolute" stands at the point, where you stop doubting and just believe. You can find the absolute if you can manage to believe in something without any doubt. If you can't, you can't.

What someone calls "absolute" depends primary on himself and his mental status - and only secondary on the object of his believing.

[Barrett Pashak]

You can think of materia as a specific configuration of ideas (or "energy") - or ideas as (a symptom of) a specific configuration of materia: for example the complexe structure of the neurons in a brain. In both ways there is relationship between the materia and the ideas and only one basic element, of which the whole material and immaterial "absolute universe" consists.

Matter and energy are one and the same. They both pertain to reality as understood as the material universe. The attempt to derive ideas from matter or matter from ideas is the essence of superstition. You should read Die Lehre von den Geistigen und vom Volk by Constantin Brunner.

[Barrett Pashak]

Upon reflection, I don't think that I have been entirely clear. Thought can be construed as the body's inner sensation of its own movement. In this sense, ideas are material. Conversely, matter can be construed as our mental representations of movement. In this sense, things are ideal. The point is that from the perspective of the material, there are no ideas; and from the perspective of the ideal, there is no matter.

[Leyla Shen]

Noooooo...

[Leyla Shen]

You were much clearer the first time.

[Barrett Pashak]

Yeah, I know, but I feel that I should attempt to help those who are struggling. Feel free to ignore everything that I say to specific individuals.

[Jay Ray]

Thought can be construed as the body's inner sensation of its own movement. In this sense, ideas are material. Conversely, matter can be construed as our mental representations of movement. In this sense, things are ideal.

Not exactly my point, but also agreeabel for me.

The point is that from the perspective of the material, there are no ideas; and from the perspective of the ideal, there is no matter.

I think a bit different about this:

From the perspective of the material, ideas exist just as waves exist in an ocean of very material water. Only the existance of non-material spheres, where ideas may exist independent of any matter (flying around like angels) ist denied.

From the perspective of the ideal, there IS matter, too - but (like at the example above) not as a sole substance, but just as a form of ideas - or I would say as a "name" for special configurations of Ideas.

I think, the terms "form" and "substance" are here important:
I don't know any unformed concrete substance - and no form, that is "non-substancial" (ie. "without medium")

At nearly every example of "matter" the form is easy to see - but at ideas sometimes we don't see (or ignore) the sub-stancial medium of the concrete idea, because one idea can "live" on many different mediums - it may be a brain, a text on a paper or CD...

To think about an "idea without medium" is just an abstraction and lossy simplification - but in this world we never meet such "things" ;)

But back to topic - "the absolute"

Reality can be seen as either wholly material or as wholly ideal, but never can it be seen as both at the same time.

To this sentence I disagree, because imo both perspectives can interprete each other as being only a part or aspect of themselves - just depending on, what is defined as the elementar substance. If they integrate the other perspective, both can claim to be "whole" and so far "absolute".

Maybe I don't see the impossibility, to see both at the same time, because I can without problem interprete any system (including stones, transistors, bacterias, etc.) as simple brothers of mine, each of them striving for its version of eudaimonia AND I can see (without waiting a moment) my twin-brother (and even myself) as a stimulus-reaction-machine.

[David Quinn]

A Zen Master once encountered two monks arguing about a flag flapping in the breeze. One of them said that it was the flag which moved, the other said it was the breeze. The Master interjected and said it was their own minds which were moving.

Trying to squeeze Reality into the straight-jacket of matter, or the straight-jacket of ideas, is absurd. Things are just what they are - neither materialistic, not idealistic. They don't have to be tampered with. They don't need our conceptual support.

If you want to understand Reality, you are going to have to break out of all this endless conceptual circling.

-

Analog wrote:

We must come to a consensus as to what an absolute actually IS.

Why? Don't you have enough faith in your own mind to work it out for yourself? Why do you need others to hold your mind up?

As always, it comes down to definitions. I agree with you that an "absolute" is necessarily independent of all other things. It is not subject to changes in perspective, or alterations of circumstance. It is always the same, no matter what.

An absolute truth, then, is one that is necessarily true in all possible worlds. It is not something which is only true for certain perspectives and not others, or in certain circumstances and not others. It is true in all situations.

And the existence of Nature itself, the totality of all there is, is absolute. It cannot be dependent upon anything else, by definition. There is nothing else.

[1.]Can we all agree that an absolute is totally independent of other things?

[2.] If [1.] is true then things can be dependent on the existence of the absolute but the absolute is not dependent on any-thing.

[3.] Everything that follows from an absolute is dependent on the absolute. There can be "quasi-absolutes" which are dependent on the more independent quasi-absolutes but these quasi-absolutes are not absolutes in the truest sense of [2.].

[4.] Then according to [3.] there can be only one true absolute, which everything else is dependent on. So while an absolute is necessarily perfect, a perfect thing is not necessarily the one true absolute. If it is not, then it is merely a quasi-absolute.

[5.] Because the one true absolute is independent of any-thing it is analogous to the largest possible[all-inclusive] set. According to Russell's and Cantor's paradoxes, the largest possible set cannot exist.

Nature is clearly an absolute and Nature clearly exists all around us. So the question needs to be asked: why does set theory make such a monumental blunder in not predicting this obvious fact? Really, set theory needs to be thrown on the scrap heap like all the other useless theores which only exist to keep academics amused and shield them from reality.

--

[Sapius]

David wrote:

An absolute truth, then, is one that is necessarily true in all possible worlds. It is not something which is only true for certain perspectives and not others, or in certain circumstances and not others. It is true in all situations.

Then, how about in the absence of consciousness? Or is consciousness never non-existent?

And the existence of Nature itself, the totality of all there is, is absolute. It cannot be dependent upon anything else, by definition. There is nothing else.

Yes, there is nothing else, but wouldn’t Nature, Totality depend on what constitutes it? May be it is dependant not with-out, but “with-in”. Self-dependant to say the least, dependant nevertheless.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, there is nothing else, but wouldn’t Nature, Totality depend on what constitutes it? May be it is dependant not with-out, but “with-in”. Self-dependant to say the least, dependant nevertheless.

So the ripple in the pool asks himself if the pool is maybe dependent on the water in it? Or would the water be dependent on the existence of a pool? The ripple, used as he is to the circles he creates, likes to think there must exist a giant circle he calls 'pool'.

Would 'dependency' not by definition imply always some 'outside'? A less conflicting term for 'dependent with-in' is self-contained or independent.

[DHodges]

So the question needs to be asked: why does set theory make such a monumental blunder in not predicting this obvious fact? Really, set theory needs to be thrown on the scrap heap like all the other useless theores which only exist to keep academics amused and shield them from reality.

Set theory runs into problems when you consider a set that contains itself (or a reference to itself) as one of the elements.

A practical example: An index book in a library that contains the names of all the books in the library that do not have their own name in them. Does that book have itself listed?

Conversely, you could have an index book of all the books that do contain their own name. That book could list itself, or not. Either way is fine.

[Sapius]

Yes, there is nothing else, but wouldn’t Nature, Totality depend on what constitutes it? May be it is dependant not with-out, but “with-in”. Self-dependant to say the least, dependant nevertheless.

So the ripple in the pool asks himself if the pool is maybe dependent on the water in it? Or would the water be dependent on the existence of a pool? The ripple, used as he is to the circles he creates, likes to think there must exist a giant circle he calls 'pool'.

Would 'dependency' not by definition imply always some 'outside'? A less conflicting term for 'dependent with-in' is self-contained or independent.

I like 'self-contained, but could I question the pool and water analogy...I'm not too clear on it though.

I take it that by pool you mean Totality. So, the ripple thinks, if there is water, so then let me call this giant circle a pool, but can there be a pool without water? Pool without water cannot exist. And no water means no ripples either, to raise the question. Hence the existence of pool and water are dependent on each other.

Totality, All there is, and by All I guess one means all possible infinite things, at the least owes it existence to cause and effect. How can we even think of the word Totality if there would be nothing to Total? ..…just thinking…..

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I take it that by pool you mean Totality. So, the ripple thinks, if there is water, so then let me call this giant circle a pool, but can there be a pool without water? Pool without water cannot exist. And no water means no ripples either, to raise the question. Hence the existence of pool and water are dependent on each other.

Of course the analogy is limited. First of all ripples do not 'think' in the water but perhaps one could say the thoughts are part of the ripple effect itself.

The 'pool' with its boundaries isn't really there, it's only the way a ripple would talk about the totality that caused everything when having only ripples to make itself clear.

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote:

DQ: An absolute truth, then, is one that is necessarily true in all possible worlds. It is not something which is only true for certain perspectives and not others, or in certain circumstances and not others. It is true in all situations.

S: Then, how about in the absence of consciousness? Or is consciousness never non-existent?

It remains true in all circumstances, even in the absence of consciousness.

The truth of 1+1=2, for example, doesn't somehow become false when no one is around to conceive of it.

DQ: And the existence of Nature itself, the totality of all there is, is absolute. It cannot be dependent upon anything else, by definition. There is nothing else.

S: Yes, there is nothing else, but wouldn’t Nature, Totality depend on what constitutes it? May be it is dependant not with-out, but “with-in”. Self-dependant to say the least, dependant nevertheless.

The trouble is, none of the things existing within the Totality can ever seperate itself from the Totality. It's not like a car, which is dependent upon external components - wheels, engine, door panels, windscreens, etc - being fitted together to form its body. In the case of the Totality, the component parts are never external, and they never have to be arranged in a particular way. The Totality remains the Totality, no matter what happens.

Also keep in mind that the Totality is not really a "totality" - as in, a collection of discrete objects - but rather a seamless, unitary entity. It doesn't really have any "parts". The basic premise of your objection collapses because of this.

In the end, there is no "Totality" over and above the things which comprise it, and there are no "things" to begin with. No things, no Totality = no dependency issues.

-

[analog57]

[1.] Everything *within* reality, is self referential and also relational. Things relate to other things, e.g. [A or not-A], as well as being self referring, e.g. [A=A].


[2.] The totality of all that exists can only refer to itself [A=A] because there is no outside reference.

[3.] Because the totality is self referential, its identity becomes a form of self similarity and as such, every self similar "fractal-like" aspect of reality has its own identity, hence the law of excluded middle [A or not-A] becomes the relational law between aspects of reality.

[4.] Because the non-local coherence of the whole[totality] holds for the localized "parts", the coherent unity of the whole, which is the same as consciousness, or mind, IS reality.

[5.] Everything is mind.

[6.] The mind of the totality is a monic[due to its self reference].

[7.] The mind of the totality is God-like.

[Sapius]

David,

The truth of 1+1=2, for example, doesn't somehow become false when no one is around to conceive of it.

In effect it means that that is not a mental construction but rather exists in Reality. Is that right?

The trouble is, none of the things existing within the Totality can ever seperate itself from the Totality.

I think we better create some new words to actually mean what we say. You see, what do mean by 'within'? Surely you don't mean 'within' as normally understood, as your quote below explains. And you are saying that things exist.

Also keep in mind that the Totality is not really a "totality" - as in, a collection of discrete objects - but rather a seamless, unitary entity. It doesn't really have any "parts".

If it really has no parts, then what are 'things' that you admit exist? BTW, both the words - 'unitary entity' - imply limitations.

In the end, there is no "Totality" over and above the things which comprise it, and there are no "things" to begin with. No things, no Totality = no dependency issues.

If that is so, then we are not having this discussion either.

The basic premise of your objection collapses because of this.

Convince me a bit more.

I can agree that there is no such thing or no-thing as Totality, hence trying to grasp it in words is futile. What if there is only a seamless flow of things, and things, and things.....

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

[1.] Everything *within* reality, is self referential and also relational. Things relate to other things, e.g. [A or not-A], as well as being self referring, e.g. [A=A].


[2.] The totality of all that exists can only refer to itself [A=A] because there is no outside reference.

[3.] Because the totality is self referential, its identity becomes a form of self similarity and as such, every self similar "fractal-like" aspect of reality has its own identity, hence the law of excluded middle [A or not-A] becomes the relational law between aspects of reality.

[4.] Because the non-local coherence of the whole[totality] holds for the localized "parts", the coherent unity of the whole, which is the same as consciousness, or mind, IS reality.

[5.] Everything is mind.

[6.] The mind of the totality is a monic[due to its self reference].

[7.] The mind of the totality is God-like.

You were born in the wrong era, mate. Medieval theology is definitely your calling. I'm sure you would have had great discussions with Aquinus and co.

Your argument starts off well, but begins to unravel at point 4. There is no compelling reason to link the cohesive unity of Reality with the concept of mind or the concept of a conscious God. Neither of these links have any logical basis to them. It's purely an arbitrary whim on your part to introduce this link, an attempt to hoodwink us into thinking you are proving the existence of a conscious God.

It's pure theology, in other words. Aquinus would have been proud, I'm sure.

-

[David Quinn]

Sapius wrote:

DQ: The truth of 1+1=2, for example, doesn't somehow become false when no one is around to conceive of it.

S: In effect it means that that is not a mental construction but rather exists in Reality. Is that right?

No, it's definitely a mental construct which disappears when no one conceives of it. But when it does disappear its existence as a concept merely ends, not its inherent truthfulness. This is why, whenever anyone thinks of it again, it is always automatically true.

A truth can only be overturned when it is demonstrated to be false. Simply ceasing to be thought about is not enough.

DQ: The basic premise of your objection collapses because of this.

S: Convince me a bit more.

We've probably hashed it out enough. Unless you have something startlingy new to introduce, we might as well leave it there.

-

[analog57]

Your argument starts off well, but begins to unravel at point 4. There is no compelling reason to link the cohesive unity of Reality with the concept of mind or the concept of a conscious God.

This is true. point 4 needs to elaborate on how the coherent unity of the totality is essentially the same as the coherent unity of a MIND. Two things can be similar but that does not mean they are the same.