GENIUS FORUMS

Jehu: Now, having answered all your questions, I have a question for you: are you sincerely interested in participating in this enquiry, or is you aim simply to derail it. You see, I sense that you are more interested in a good quarrel, than in seeking the truth, and I have little time for that sort of nonsense, for it leads nowhere and serves no one – save one’s ego.

You seem to sense wrong my friend, you couldn’t get me into a quarrel even if you tried your level best, but if you want to pick and choose, say those that temporarily agree just for the sake of argument, then all you have to do is simply ask me to not participate, although the invitation seems to be open to all, (Dumb and Dumber alike). You did mention it takes different approaches for different individuals, or something like that, but do you sense I have no hope at all?

Sapius wrote:You seem to sense wrong my friend, you couldn’t get me into a quarrel even if you tried your level best, but if you want to pick and choose, say those that temporarily agree just for the sake of argument, then all you have to do is simply ask me to not participate, although the invitation seems to be open to all, (Dumb and Dumber alike). You did mention it takes different approaches for different individuals, or something like that, but do you sense I have no hope at all?

Indeed, the invitation is open to all, provided that they conduct themselves in a manner befitting a philosophical enquiry. Unfortunately, these forums are teeming with all manner of people for whom the pursuit of truth is little more than a joke, and who are intent only upon wasting their time; and as the sage said, “it is better to walk the path alone, than to suffer the company of fools”. So, if I have wronged you in thinking you quarrelsome, I sincerely apologize, and look forward to your input. However, I would ask this of you: if you object to anything that I have said, please include within your post, on what logical grounds your objection stands.

Welcome Sapius.

since you will be repeating the same tenets that you have been tirelessly repeating again and again; of course, I do understand, it is for the good of Iolaus,

So you are calling me a dunce, and I'm afraid it is true.


Jehu,

You must let go of the notion of substance, for all substance is illusory. That which is real simply is (exists), and there is nothing that may be rightfully predicated of it; for only relative entities have a definable essence (substance).

Let us say that I am beginning to understand the difference between that which is philosophically real and not. And of the Absolute we can say nothing, for every man is a liar.
It makes no sense to say all substance is illusory and also that relative entities have definable substance. I am interested in what this substance consists of. Also, albeit we can't say anything of the Absolute, yet it is not nothing. Perhaps that is the only thing which can be said, and perhaps that is the corollary of saying that it exists.
And even, if a particular question that I stubbornly cling to, turns out not to be answerable to us and is not needful to our inquiry, I can accept that also.

All substances, like your line, must be malleable (fluid), in order that they may be fashioned into various forms. To be malleable, substances must comprise loosely bound particles, and so they must have only a relative existence, and cannot be real.

Their malleability consists precisely in this: that they are not fixed in their properties, but can through some sort of permutations that we as yet know not of, assume different properties. This is the best understanding I have been able to come up with, it is logical to the point that I cannot see how there even could be more than one underlying substance - whatever its nature - I am willing to give it up if I see something better. And it may not be crucial to our inquiry. It's just the way I think reality works.

Things comprise other subordinate things, but there is not fundamental thing from which they are all fashioned, for this would require a multitude of absolute entities, which would then be incapable of interacting with one another; for to interact, two things must be related in some way, and an absolute entity is unrelated to any other entity.

No more incapable of interacting than you and I are.

The forms that we perceive as embodied within the objective world are relative, for they are subject to arising, changing and dissolution. Nevertheless, there is a form which is absolute, independent and immutable, but this form cannot be perceived, for it exists as pure potential.

The reason I asked about whether form is absolute or relative is because of this:

not two because if form and essence were completely different (separate) then there could be no relationship between them;

So it appears that form is one of the five elements, but also is immutable. Isn't that amazing?

Not unless you willing chose to die, but dying is not the purpose of awakening.

No, I wasn't speaking of dying. You said that the fragment of awareness is not really separate from the whole. Yet it seems that our fragments have a continuity for a very, very long time. You had said that our separation was one of imagination, and it may be so - but you may realize that you are not separate, yet one's individualized fragment does not seem to cease from that realization.

The actual is what may be called “perfect knowledge” and it comes about as a result of the absolute (principle of identity), which is the operative cause of all things. However, to understand how the process works requires that you first realize that the nature of reality is essential cognizant, and then the process can be seen at work in the way that we sentient beings create our own dream worlds.

You say that there is a correlating pattern between our creation of our dream worlds, and the way that the Absolute creates the universe. That may very well be so, nonetheless I expect some sort of fundamental difference. And a big clue is that the Absolute is able to create a dream world that other beings perceive and interact with, as opposed to my own dream world. Furthermore, without the fodder from experiencing this objective universe, my own dreams would have no ideas to fuel them.

For some reason, you think I must realize that reality is cognizant before understanding how things manifest. It seems to me that if I could know how things manifest, it would answer some other questions.

That mind is the source of all is almost surely true, and that things are not real in the philosophical sense is also true, but are they real in the actual sense? What does that even mean?

Iolaus wrote:It makes no sense to say all substance is illusory and also that relative entities have definable substance. I am interested in what this substance consists of. Also, albeit we can't say anything of the Absolute, yet it is not nothing.

Everything comprises other subordinate (simpler) things of the same type (mentation, sensations, objects …); but these subordinates are themselves the result of the coming together of subordinates, etc., etc., etc,; but this regression, far from being infinite, ends at that stage where we are no longer able of perceiving or imagining anything simpler. Thus, in the final analysis, things are not really made of anything, but are simply illusions. Further, when I refer to the absolute as “nothing”, I do not mean that it is non-existent, for we have abandoned that notion entirely, but only that it is not a thing.

Their malleability consists precisely in this: that they are not fixed in their properties, but can through some sort of permutations that we as yet know not of, assume different properties. This is the best understanding I have been able to come up with, it is logical to the point that I cannot see how there even could be more than one underlying substance - whatever its nature - I am willing to give it up if I see something better. And it may not be crucial to our inquiry. It's just the way I think reality works.

But we have already shown that things do not have properties (i.e., intrinsic causes), and besides, can you think of even one so called property that resides within a thing itself?

No more incapable of interacting than you and I are.

You do not yet fully understand what it means to have an absolute and necessary existence. To be self-caused, is to be free of any interaction or influence by any external entity, for you see, an absolute entity is unbounded and so does not have an outside. Even so, if two absolute entities were to be related, then they could not rightfully be called “two” entities, for to be related, is to be somehow connected; for no thing can influence another thing without that some essential aspect (characteristic) is held in common.

So it appears that form is one of the five elements, but also is immutable. Isn't that amazing?

Indeed, it is most amazing; for you see that which perceives (the absolute) is not entirely separate from that which is perceived (the relative), and although the forms which are made manifest are relative and imperfect, they are modeled upon other forms that are absolute and perfect; and it is for this reason that we are able to recognize things – for we cannot recognize that which we do not already know.

No, I wasn't speaking of dying. You said that the fragment of awareness is not really separate from the whole. Yet it seems that our fragments have a continuity for a very, very long time. You had said that our separation was one of imagination, and it may be so - but you may realize that you are not separate, yet one's individualized fragment does not seem to cease from that realization.

No, they do not cease upon awakening, but take their rightful place within the objective world, where they function in accordance with their intended purpose.

You say that there is a correlating pattern between our creation of our dream worlds, and the way that the Absolute creates the universe. That may very well be so, nonetheless I expect some sort of fundamental difference. And a big clue is that the Absolute is able to create a dream world that other beings perceive and interact with, as opposed to my own dream world.

Are there not other beings who inhabit our dream worlds as well, and do they not seem to exist independent of our dream persona?

Furthermore, without the fodder from experiencing this objective universe, my own dreams would have no ideas to fuel them.

And without those potential forms that abide within the absolute there would be no fuel for the objective world either.

For some reason, you think I must realize that reality is cognizant before understanding how things manifest. It seems to me that if I could know how things manifest, it would answer some other questions.

I should very much like to tell you how things manifest, but my explanation would necessarily begin with cognizant awareness, and so you must first understand that it is the cognizant subject that is real.

That mind is the source of all is almost surely true, and that things are not real in the philosophical sense is also true, but are they real in the actual sense? What does that even mean?

Do not imagine that just because I say that things are not real, that I mean they do not exist at all. The real, the actual and the imaginary, all partake of existence, it is only in the manner of their being that they differ. You see, Being is the way that it is because it cannot be otherwise. The kind of world that the materialist/realists imagine simply cannot possibly be; unfortunately, they have busied themselves so much with trying to understand how things are related, that they have entirely neglected the more important question: what it is that relates things?

Jehu,

but these subordinates are themselves the result of the coming together of subordinates, etc., etc., etc,; but this regression, far from being infinite, ends at that stage where we are no longer able of perceiving or imagining anything simpler. Thus, in the final analysis, things are not really made of anything, but are simply illusions.

Aha! Thisis where I disagree. Things are made of smaller things, and it ends where it ends. What we know or are able to imagine is irrelevant. How can you even say such stuff? It seems like wishful thinking. So an uneducated person in a village has one sort of matter, and one who knows about atoms and particles has another? The truth is, we do not know of what stuff is made.

Further, when I refer to the absolute as “nothing”, I do not mean that it is non-existent, for we have abandoned that notion entirely, but only that it is not a thing.

Yes, I do know that. But I cannot help but question what it means to say that something is insubstantial. The question then arises, if it has no substance, in what way does it manage to exist, as opposed to not existing? [Mind you, this is exactly what the religious say about God and spirit. That it is 'nonmaterial.' But how is that possible? I don't see how, and they have not thought deeply about it.]
You have said that for entities to interact, they must be related in some way. In what way is the nonsubstantial able to interact in a material reality of forces, if it has no force?

But we have already shown that things do not have properties (i.e., intrinsic causes), and besides, can you think of even one so called property that resides within a thing itself?

We have never seen this foundational particle or whatever-it-is that makes up matter. All things that we can examine do indeed have no properties of their own, and are not things in themselves.

Even so, if two absolute entities were to be related, then they could not rightfully be called “two” entities, for to be related, is to be somehow connected; for no thing can influence another thing without that some essential aspect (characteristic) is held in common.

I do not consider them to be truly separate, as no things in existence are truly separate. And I used the analogy of you and me for the reason that we both contain a fragment of the One awareness, and we are not separate, yet we appear to be and to operate for all practical purposes independently. I don't even know what continent you live on, since you are too mean to tell me. The same might be true of the bedrock of matter.

Indeed, it is most amazing; for you see that which perceives (the absolute) is not entirely separate from that which is perceived (the relative), and although the forms which are made manifest are relative and imperfect, they are modeled upon other forms that are absolute and perfect; and it is for this reason that we are able to recognize things – for we cannot recognize that which we do not already know.

This makes sense. So would you say that of the five eleents, form is a kind of bridge to the absolute?

Are there not other beings who inhabit our dream worlds as well, and do they not seem to exist independent of our dream persona?

But I do not pull other people into my dreams. We do not all dream the same dream at night.

And without those potential forms that abide within the absolute there would be no fuel for the objective world either.

I see, that makes sense. But, whence arise those potential forms?

Do not imagine that just because I say that things are not real, that I mean they do not exist at all. The real, the actual and the imaginary, all partake of existence, it is only in the manner of their being that they differ.

Yes, it is a huge struggle, perhaps paritally language prejudice. This is why I said I wanted to go over what it means to be actual. I have a much better handle on the Absolute, actually, and agree with much that you have said about it.

Iolaus wrote:Yes, I do know that. But I cannot help but question what it means to say that something is insubstantial. The question then arises, if it has no substance, in what way does it manage to exist, as opposed to not existing? [Mind you, this is exactly what the religious say about God and spirit. That it is 'nonmaterial.] But how is that possible? I don't see how, and they have not thought deeply about it.

What it means to be insubstantial, is to be devoid of that quality which characterizes the substantial; that is to say, the ability to be immediately perceived. Just as a mirror cannot reflect itself, neither can awareness perceive itself, though it is able to perceives all else.

You have said that for entities to interact, they must be related in some way. In what way is the nonsubstantial able to interact in a material reality of forces, if it has no force?

The Absolute is the “operative cause” of all things, that is to say, it is “the force” which operates between all things, material or otherwise.

This makes sense. So would you say that of the five elements, form is a kind of bridge to the absolute?

Yes, one could say that, for form is superior to essence, and so of the two actual elements, it is the one closest to that which is real.

But I do not pull other people into my dreams. We do not all dream the same dream at night.

No, but within our own dream, all the sentient players are generated by the same fragment of awareness, thought neither our dream persona nor our sleeping persona are cognizant of the fact.

I see, that makes sense. But, whence arise those potential forms?

These “universals” neither arise nor cease, for they patake of an absolute existence. However, it must be understood that their existence is no a differentiate one, that is to say, there is not some higher dimension wherein these forms abide – waiting to be actualized. Rather, they are inherent within the Law of Identity, just as in any mathematical principle, certain numerical values are inherent, while others are excluded; nevertheless, these values are not actualized until the principle is applied.

Yes, it is a huge struggle, perhaps partially language prejudice. This is why I said I wanted to go over what it means to be actual. I have a much better handle on the Absolute, actually, and agree with much that you have said about it.

Yes, I understand, but it must be remembered that the terms “real”, “actual” and “imaginary” all pertain to being, and one does not partake more of being than another.

Jehu,

What it means to be insubstantial, is to be devoid of that quality which characterizes the substantial; that is to say, the ability to be immediately perceived.

OK, but this means that substantiality is a moving target, a subjective experience depending upon the sharpness of the senses of the sentient being. The example I gave before, that we now know and measure rays in the electromagnetic spectrum that we can neither see nor feel, shows that there is a continuum, and no doubt we have not delved to the bottom of it. My premise is that anything that can affect energy or matter must have some sort of substantiality. Nor can I see a difference between complete nonsubstantiality and nonexistence.

This point may not actually be crucial for our inquiry.

Just as a mirror cannot reflect itself, neither can awareness perceive itself, though it is able to perceives all else.

The reason I cannot perceive my own awareness, though, is not necessarily because of its insubstantiality. I cannot see my own face without some reflecting surface. Likewise, awareness, I think, is always at the center, so to speak, of everything, like a pair of eyes looking outward at the world.

The Absolute is the “operative cause” of all things, that is to say, it is “the force” which operates between all things, material or otherwise.

Sure, but my wondering is about the insubstantiality. What force can it have? How does the insubstantial touch the substantial?

No, but within our own dream, all the sentient players are generated by the same fragment of awareness, thought neither our dream persona nor our sleeping persona are cognizant of the fact.

It's a fair point but in my dreams, the other personas are no more accessible to me than they are in my waking life. I do not have access to their experience firsthand but watch from without. So I have not really divided my own awareness, just made up a story.

Yes, I understand, but it must be remembered that the terms “real”, “actual” and “imaginary” all pertain to being, and one does not partake more of being than another.

Ok.

Iolaus: So you are calling me a dunce, and I'm afraid it is true.

Hehehe… no, not at all, your concerns are quite genuine, only that Jehu is quite genuinely enthusiastic and likes to make sure that the message is conveyed.

.
Jehu, I think I better pick it up where I left off, if you don’t mind, but if you do, then please let me know, I will understand. And although I will question rationally, please do not expect me to speak in academic standards.

Iolaus wrote:OK, but this means that substantiality is a moving target, a subjective experience depending upon the sharpness of the senses of the sentient being.

Yes, of course, the objective world appears quite different to a frog than to a bird, and different again to a human being. Humans beings, however, are the only sentient beings which have been able to extend their natural range of perception, either through technology, or by the use of intellectual tools such as mathematics. In any event, the objective world manifest only to that extent that it is perceived or imagined by a sentient being.

The example I gave before, that we now know and measure rays in the electromagnetic spectrum that we can neither see nor feel, shows that there is a continuum, and no doubt we have not delved to the bottom of it. My premise is that anything that can affect energy or matter must have some sort of substantiality.

Just as in a dream, whatever lies beyond an unopened door manifests only when your dream persona opens it and peers beyond.

Nor can I see a difference between complete nonsubstantiality and nonexistence.

If by “complete non-substantiality” you mean no substance (i.e., essence) whatsoever, then I suppose this would equate to non-existence, for without “essence” (substance) there can be no “form” (non-substance). However, essence has always existed, but this existence is a state of “becoming” as apposed to a state of “being”.

The reason I cannot perceive my own awareness, though, is not necessarily because of its insubstantiality. I cannot see my own face without some reflecting surface. Likewise, awareness, I think, is always at the center, so to speak, of everything, like a pair of eyes looking outward at the world.

Yes, this is so, for as we discovered earlier, the Absolute (awareness) has no boundary, and so no outside. For this reason, it follows that whatever it perceives is necessarily internal, and although awareness seems to be looking out upon an objective world, it is really looking in upon a subjective world.

Sure, but my wondering is about the insubstantiality. What force can it have? How does the insubstantial touch the substantial?

The force of the insubstantial is the capacity to imagine things, and it affects the substantial in precisely the same way that the mind affects ideas, for ideas are not other than mind, nor are they one and the same.

It's a fair point but in my dreams, the other personas are no more accessible to me than they are in my waking life. I do not have access to their experience firsthand but watch from without. So I have not really divided my own awareness, just made up a story.

Yes, but this is because you are not aware of the fact that you are merely dreaming. The lucid dreamer, on the other hand, is master of the dream.

According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus told his followers, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all.”

Sapius wrote:Jehu, I think I better pick it up where I left off, if you don’t mind, but if you do, then please let me know, I will understand. And although I will question rationally, please do not expect me to speak in academic standards.

Alright, let us begin wherever you will, but let us try to progress in a systematic fashion, and avoid any unnecessary speculation. Perhaps though it might be wise if we were to look first at the “Principle of Identity”, for it is the first principle upon which this entire enquiry rests, and so it is vital that we all recognize its primacy.

Jehu,

Alright, let us begin wherever you will, but let us try to progress in a systematic fashion, and avoid any unnecessary speculation.

Fine, you are absolutely correct about speculation, but is there a philosophical definition of ‘speculation’?

Perhaps though it might be wise if we were to look first at the “Principle of Identity”, for it is the first principle upon which this entire enquiry rests, and so it is vital that we all recognize its primacy.

I agree, and in a way, our initial discussion was actually revolving around just that; FYI, I have no doubts about its primacy, although, it seems to be in jeopardy once we get closer and closer to understanding the greater universe of discourse called ‘’being”, since it seems to abandon the primary requirement of differentiation, on which “being” seems to be absolutely dependant on… anyways…

Just as when there is everywhere nothing but water, we cannot say that there is a multitude of separate bodies of water, but a singular and continuous body of water; just so when there is everywhere only being, we cannot say that there is a multiplicity of separate beings, but a singular and continuous being. It follows then that in whatever manner one sort of thing differs from another, it in not in its 'existential being' (existence), which is in everything the same both in its quality and its quantity. Therefore, being is the one “universal predicate”, and as such, cannot be used to differentiate one thing from another.

Earlier on the first page I addressed the former half of the above, let me ask about the later half now.

So why shouldn’t we simply cancel-out this universally common denominator, ‘being’, from the equation, and say no more about it? In any case, isn't it true that one cannot say ‘what it is’, only ‘that it is’?

Jehu,

Yes, of course, the objective world appears quite different to a frog than to a bird, and different again to a human being. Humans beings, however, are the only sentient beings which have been able to extend their natural range of perception, either through technology, or by the use of intellectual tools such as mathematics. In any event, the objective world manifest only to that extent that it is perceived or imagined by a sentient being.

Yes. Although I wonder what is the point when all of it is an illusion.
But how it manifests to this or that being, does not tell us what the foundation of it is.
You have said that I must let go of the idea of substance for it is all illusory. That substance itself does not exist. But I think that perhaps the illusion does not lie in the brute existence or nonexistence of substance, but rather in what its real properties are.
What does it mean to say that substance is an illusion, but that the things are actual? What does it mean to be actual?
In the end, you are a dualist, and I am a monist of sorts although I agree with the logic of most of your arguments. It would seem that the crucial point is to know that one is the immutable awareness, and not a thing. Is that so?

The example I gave before, that we now know and measure rays in the electromagnetic spectrum that we can neither see nor feel, shows that there is a continuum, and no doubt we have not delved to the bottom of it. My premise is that anything that can affect energy or matter must have some sort of substantiality.

Just as in a dream, whatever lies beyond an unopened door manifests only when your dream persona opens it and peers beyond.

I was attempting to point out, that the line between that which can be perceived and that which cannot has moved due to our scientific instruments and discoveries. So xrays were once insubstantial and now are not. We cannot see or feel its presence, yet it can kill us. Other phenomena, such as psi or esp will also have scientific explanations. So we move from easily perceptible forms of substance, to less easily perceptible ones. At the furthest extreme, we have awareness. And if awareness is the mover of all things, I simply ask, how does it touch things unless it have some substance, some energy, also?

Nor can I see a difference between complete nonsubstantiality and nonexistence.

If by “complete non-substantiality” you mean no substance (i.e., essence) whatsoever, then I suppose this would equate to non-existence, for without “essence” (substance) there can be no “form” (non-substance). However, essence has always existed, but this existence is a state of “becoming” as apposed to a state of “being”.

Hmmm...I would have thought that most higher understandings of God would consider him/her formless. Whose essence has always existed? You have said that the relative is ever in a state of becoming.

Yes, this is so, for as we discovered earlier, the Absolute (awareness) has no boundary, and so no outside. For this reason, it follows that whatever it perceives is necessarily internal, and although awareness seems to be looking out upon an objective world, it is really looking in upon a subjective world.

A very interesting point, at any rate we agree that that which perceives cannot perceive itself.

It's a fair point but in my dreams, the other personas are no more accessible to me than they are in my waking life. I do not have access to their experience firsthand but watch from without. So I have not really divided my own awareness, just made up a story.

Yes, but this is because you are not aware of the fact that you are merely dreaming. The lucid dreamer, on the other hand, is master of the dream.

I have had lucid dreams in which I know that I am dreaming and sometimes I begin to direct the dream a bit, but I did not experience all the people in the dream from within.

Iolaus, if I may…

…at any rate we agree that that which perceives cannot perceive itself.

I think it should actually read ‘cannot perceive its self’, since we are talking philosophically, but then what exactly is the act of ‘perception’, which does not already acknowledge the sense of there being something other than what itself is? which is the first and foremost fundamental principle of ‘being’; the sense of identity through differentiation. I see that it does not need to perceive its self to operate at least, for it does however, and once a thing has a complex enough consciousness, it can abstractly know its own nature, that’s all, which already was however. Hence, in my opinion, if a thing does not have a sense of self already, perception cannot take place. To me it seems they both rise simultaneously.

BTW, this has nothing to do with a monkey wondering over its physical reflection in a pond.

I have had lucid dreams in which I know that I am dreaming and sometimes I begin to direct the dream a bit, but I did not experience all the people in the dream from within.

Nine out of ten times I’m fully aware that I am dreaming while I am, and that is because I can detect logical inconsistencies within it, and the one time that I cannot, or within the rest of the waking-time, is because logical consistencies rule, so it doesn’t matter if we somehow doubt or even try and prove that the waking-time is in fact a dream-time, for then we are in denial of the fundamental principle of identification through differentiation, and we loose all meaning of dream-time AND waking-time.

Iolaus wrote:Yes. Although I wonder what is the point when all of it is an illusion.

The point is that if there is to be existence, this is the only way that it is possible, and since there is existence, this is how it must necessarily be as it is.

But how it manifests to this or that being, does not tell us what the foundation of it is.

Again, we cannot rightfully ask “what” it is, for the moment we delve into essences, we are back in the realm of illusion.

You have said that I must let go of the idea of substance for it is all illusory. That substance itself does not exist.

I have never said that substance does not exist, but only that it partakes of a relative existence and so is not real.

But I think that perhaps the illusion does not lie in the brute existence or nonexistence of substance, but rather in what its real properties are.

Yes, illusion does lie in that which is real, and as it abides inherently therein, they are indeed its properties. Have I not said all along that all characteristics (colour, taste, smell, …) are posited to the thing by the sentient observer.

What does it mean to say that substance is an illusion, but that the things are actual? What does it mean to be actual?

The actual (objective world) is merely the imaginings of that which is real (The Absolute), and includes we sentient being.

In the end, you are a dualist, and I am a monist of sorts although I agree with the logic of most of your arguments.

There is no dualism in this doctrine, for the absolute and the relative are not independent entities (not two), but two interdependent and complementary aspects of one and the same entity. Accordingly, this doctrine is existentially monistic, but essentially pluralistic, and for this reason, appears to be dualistic.

It would seem that the crucial point is to know that one is the immutable awareness, and not a thing. Is that so?

Yes, to know oneself, one’s true nature, this is vital to our liberation.

I was attempting to point out, that the line between that which can be perceived and that which cannot has moved due to our scientific instruments and discoveries. So xrays were once insubstantial and now are not. We cannot see or feel its presence, yet it can kill us. Other phenomena, such as psi or esp will also have scientific explanations. So we move from easily perceptible forms of substance, to less easily perceptible ones. At the furthest extreme, we have awareness. And if awareness is the mover of all things, I simply ask, how does it touch things unless it have some substance, some energy, also?

It does not need substance to give it force, it is itself force.

Hmmm...I would have thought that most higher understandings of God would consider him/her formless. Whose essence has always existed? You have said that the relative is ever in a state of becoming.

You are quite right, Being is indeed formless, for that is precise what it means to be unbounded.

A very interesting point, at any rate we agree that that which perceives cannot perceive itself.

Yes, it cannot be either perceived thought the senses, nor through the imagination, but there is yet another way of perceiving, an inner eye, and this inner eye is called “reason”. By this I mean that if we follow carefully the path of reason, then language may be used as an embodiment for reality, and thus render it perceptible.

Sapius wrote:Fine, you are absolutely correct about speculation, but is there a philosophical definition of ‘speculation’?

I know of no specific philosophical meaning, however, when I use the term, ‘Speculate”, I mean “to form a theory or conjecture without a firm rational basis (by deductive reasoning), but merely on the basis of how a thing appears (by inductive reasoning). [from the Latin speculari meaning: “to watch”]

So why shouldn’t we simply cancel-out this universally common denominator, ‘being’, from the equation, and say no more about it? In any case, isn't it true that one cannot say ‘what it is’, only ‘that it is’?

It is “existential being” that is the universal predicate, and it is because we have abstracted it from its complementary aspect, “essential being”, that we cannot say what it is; for the term “what it is” denotes the constitutive causes (essence) of an entity, but we are speaking of its operative cause (form).

Sapius wrote:Fine, you are absolutely correct about speculation, but is there a philosophical definition of ‘speculation’?

I know of no specific philosophical meaning, however, when I use the term, ‘Speculate”, I mean “to form a theory or conjecture without a firm rational basis (by deductive reasoning), but merely on the basis of how a thing appears (by inductive reasoning). [from the Latin speculari meaning: “to watch”]

So why shouldn’t we simply cancel-out this universally common denominator, ‘being’, from the equation, and say no more about it? In any case, isn't it true that one cannot say ‘what it is’, only ‘that it is’?

It is “existential being” that is the universal predicate, and it is because we have abstracted it from its complementary aspect, “essential being”, that we cannot say what it is; for the term “what it is” denotes the constitutive causes (essence) of an entity, but we are speaking of its operative cause (form).

Jehu,

It is “existential being” that is the universal predicate, and it is because we have abstracted it from its complementary aspect, “essential being”, that we cannot say what it is; for the term “what it is” denotes the constitutive causes (essence) of an entity, but we are speaking of its operative cause (form).

Yes ,we are speaking of the operative causes of existence, but what I want to know is…

We cannot say what the aspect of “existential being” (I will take “being” to mean “to be”) of existence is, although we abstract it from the complimentary aspect of existence, namely “essential being”. Where the "existential" aspect is real, and the "essential" aspect is illusory.

Would that be correct?

This might be of interest to you, Iolaus.

We cannot say what the aspect of “existential being” (I will take “being” to mean “to be”) of existence is, although we abstract it from the complimentary aspect of existence, namely “essential being”. Where the "existential" aspect is real, and the "essential" aspect is illusory.

Would that be correct?

Yes, this is essential correct.

Jehu: It is “existential being” that is the universal predicate, and it is because we have abstracted it from its complementary aspect, “essential being”, that we cannot say what it is; for the term “what it is” denotes the constitutive causes (essence) of an entity, but we are speaking of its operative cause (form).

Sapius: We cannot say what the aspect of “existential being” (I will take “being” to mean “to be”) of existence is, although we abstract it from the complimentary aspect of existence, namely “essential being”. Where the "existential" aspect is real, and the "essential" aspect is illusory. Would that be correct?

Jehu: Yes, this is essential correct.

Does it also have to be existentially correct? (: just kidding :)

Well, ok then. Firstly, it is quite simple to understand that there are not two “beings”, two “existences” that is, but one existence, since non-existence is naught, so what actually is, is the two complementary aspects of ‘existence’, namely real/absolute/existential as against illusory/relative/essential, (and I don't mean opposing), and one could reasonably say that that’s what makes ‘existence’ possible, since I don’t see it possible that existence could do without, or even be what “it is”, without either of the complementary “aspect” in place. Could it?

Now about ‘one cannot say “what it is”’; if you ask me what existence is, I can very reasonably say, awareness and knowledge, which seems to be the essence of existence, and hence (existence) may also be considered a thing that stands before the mind, hence may actually be illusory. ???

Sapius wrote:
Well, ok then. Firstly, it is quite simple to understand that there are not two “beings”, two “existences” that is, but one existence, since non-existence is naught, so what actually is, is the two complementary aspects of ‘existence’, namely real/absolute/existential as against illusory/relative/essential, (and I don't mean opposing), and one could reasonably say that that’s what makes ‘existence’ possible, since I don’t see it possible that existence could do without, or even be what “it is”, without either of the complementary “aspect” in place. Could it?

Now about ‘one cannot say “what it is”’; if you ask me what existence is, I can very reasonably say, awareness and knowledge, which seems to be the essence of existence, and hence (existence) may also be considered a thing that stands before the mind, hence may actually be illusory. ???

Wow. Just wow. If understanding the above has anything at all to do with truth -- an essential-to-know truth -- then please, please keep me ignorant.

Once again, pardon for the intrusion. My weakness.

*Bows while backing out*

Carl G wrote:

Sapius wrote:
Well, ok then. Firstly, it is quite simple to understand that there are not two “beings”, two “existences” that is, but one existence, since non-existence is naught, so what actually is, is the two complementary aspects of ‘existence’, namely real/absolute/existential as against illusory/relative/essential, (and I don't mean opposing), and one could reasonably say that that’s what makes ‘existence’ possible, since I don’t see it possible that existence could do without, or even be what “it is”, without either of the complementary “aspect” in place. Could it?

Now about ‘one cannot say “what it is”’; if you ask me what existence is, I can very reasonably say, awareness and knowledge, which seems to be the essence of existence, and hence (existence) may also be considered a thing that stands before the mind, hence may actually be illusory. ???

Wow. Just wow. If understanding the above has anything at all to do with truth -- an essential-to-know truth -- then please, please keep me ignorant.

Once again, pardon for the intrusion. My weakness.

*Bows while backing out*

Thanks, Carl :)
BTW, no apologies necessary; its quite understandable.

Sapius wrote:Well, ok then. Firstly, it is quite simple to understand that there are not two “beings”, two “existences” that is, but one existence, since non-existence is naught, so what actually is, is the two complementary aspects of ‘existence’, namely real/absolute/existential as against illusory/relative/essential, (and I don't mean opposing), and one could reasonably say that that’s what makes ‘existence’ possible, since I don’t see it possible that existence could do without, or even be what “it is”, without either of the complementary “aspect” in place. Could it?

Undoubtedly not.

Now about ‘one cannot say “what it is”’; if you ask me what existence is, I can very reasonably say, awareness and knowledge, which seems to be the essence of existence, and hence (existence) may also be considered a thing that stands before the mind, hence may actually be illusory. ???

As I stressed earlier in the thread, those names which I have attributed both to the Five Elements (aether, water, earth, fire and water), as well as those which denote the two primary aspects of Being (awareness and knowledge), are not themselves things, and therefore, cannot rightfully be named. Nevertheless, if we are to be able to speak of them, then we must assign them designations; but it must be understood that these are merely surrogate names, and not what they are.

Now, in answer to your question, yes, whatever you might imagine these aspects to be, are just that – “imaginary”, however, if one imagines (thinks/reasons) deductively, and proceeds from the Principle of Identity alone, then ones imaginings will be true – though the words wherein that truth is embodied are purely illusory.

Jehu: As I stressed earlier in the thread, those names which I have attributed both to the Five Elements (aether, water, earth, fire and water), as well as those which denote the two primary aspects of Being (awareness and knowledge), are not themselves things, and therefore, cannot rightfully be named. Nevertheless, if we are to be able to speak of them, then we must assign them designations; but it must be understood that these are merely surrogate names, and not what they are.

I can’t really go by ‘cannot rightfully be named’ where I do name them however, but I do understand the dilemma of communicating such concepts; same goes for the word “Tao”: either I name it, or I don’t.

But what if we don’t speak of them? Would they loose their essential aspect or their sensually experienced existential aspect? Take a tree and a bicycle for example; if I don’t speak of them, will they amalgamate? Will they existentially not remain separate unless we define them? Is a sense of separation not required between the I and the rest?

Now, in answer to your question, yes, whatever you might imagine these aspects to be, are just that – “imaginary”, however, if one imagines (thinks/reasons) deductively, and proceeds from the Principle of Identity alone, then ones imaginings will be true – though the words wherein that truth is embodied are purely illusory.

Fine, I have no real argument there, I agree that the map is not the territory, but when I have already (thought/reasoned) deduced that utterly all is necessarily “imaginary”, but actual, I personally find no reason to describe existence/being any further as Absolute or otherwise, not even as ‘not two’.

In my opinion, it may be hard to imagine (reason), that there could be merely but two aspects (say forces), and on the tip of their inter-actionary-point/s is where lies all sense of existence/being, which is “imaginary” too, including the two forces, but are actual nonetheless, hence, absolutely nothing can be actually said, or even thought about existence/being. I consider my “imaginings” to be true, as far as I can poorly reason that is, but I must say that you are doing quite a good job of explaining yourself, and as you may agree, there is a tiny bit of faith required from the very get go, so ultimately any realization utterly depends on the thought processes and acceptance of an individual self. BTW, nice to know you :)