Iolaus wrote:OK, so if there are not two separate balloons, then are you saying that everything is real?
On the contrary, I am saying that there is nothing that is real. However, given that a thing cannot arise without that it has a cause, nor can it arise from a cause that is itself not real (relative); it follows that, associated with the appearance of a thing, there must be that which is real (absolute) – which is the true origin and cause of the thing.
Iolaus wrote:No, no, I need to understand in what way the absolute depends on the relative for its existence.
The absolute is dependent upon the relative in just the same way that awareness is dependent upon its objects (knowledge); for to be aware, is to be aware of something (object); that is to say, an idea, a feeling, an object, a property or an activity.
Iolaus wrote:What Divine Focus said (I think it was him/her) might be right. First, you have this absolute entity, perhaps consciousness, and out of it arises a universe. How does your philosophy compare to this:
The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
I do not believe that Lao Tzu would find any fault with the doctrine that I am expounding, however, I would prefer to keep our enquiry firmly in the realm of philosophy – at least until we have established a solid logical foundation. However, I would be happy to return to this question a little later, as I am a great admirer of Master Lao.
Iolaus wrote:for whatever change takes place in the one is immediately reflected in the other.
How so?
Let’s say that we were to partition the whole of Being into that which is ‘actual’ (objective) and that which is only ‘imaginary’ (subjective). Then, let’s say that we manage to actualize something which was previously only imagined (e.g., the invention of the computer); in actualizing the thing, the thing then moves from the realm of the imaginary into the realm of the actual, for it cannot occupy two complementary realms simultaneously [law of contradiction]. Likewise, if a thing were to cease to be actual (e.g., the extinction of particular species), that thing would then cease to exist in the realm of the actual, and continue to exist only in the realm of the imagination. Therefore, it may be asserted that whenever we alter the content of any one such partition, the result is an immediate alteration in the content of the complementary partition.
Iolaus wrote:That awareness is a function of the sentient brain is merely an empirical inference, it has never been logically demonstrated to be the case.
Sure, but where are the logical steps to demonstrate the primacy of cognizance, and that the absolute must be a cognizant entity?
If one accepts that there are but two possible modes of existence, and one must if one is not to violate the law of excluded middle; and if one accepts that the relative (contingent) mode of being is not real, but merely apparent, then it follows that there must exist that wherein the relative mode is made manifest (appears), and that this encompassing existent must be the absolute mode – there being none other. In other words, although everything that we perceive, be it through the senses or through our own imaginations, may be pure deception; it still follows that there must be (exist) that which is deceived; and this existent must be real, for that cannot be deceived which is itself only an illusion.
