Neil,
DQ: Logic is central to existence itself and therefore is not really a human creation. As soon as a thing exists, in whatever shape or form, it has an identity of some kind, which automatically brings logic into play. Logic is really just the art of perceiving identity.
Neil: This is true in the sense that we have defined "existence". In the sense that you define "existence" as "appearance" (as I recall), yes. However I am now willing to admit that things can "exist" without appearing to me, or that the "Totality" could contain things that don't appear to me.
There are zillions of things in the Totality which exist and don't appear to you. For example, the appearance of the tree currently outside my window isn't appearing to you.
It is impossible to refute the truth that existence necessarily involves having a form and therefore an identity. This is because any counter-examples that we care to point to will necessarily have a form and identity as well. The whole, "But what about the possibility that .... ", has no means to make its mark.
DQ: - All truth is tautological in nature. Good philosophy consists of making tautological truth meaningful by bringing the empirical world into its loop. A meaningful truth is a tautology which cannot help but include the empirical world within itself out of logical necessity.
Neil: Got any examples? From what you say here I imagine the empirical world is included in these because humans created these tautologies based on the empirical world.
If we define a "thing" to be a finite portion of the Totality, then all phenomena are "things" which comprise the Totality.
This is a simple tautology which necessarily embraces all phenomena, including all empirical phenomena, because of the fact that nothing can exist outside of, or apart from, the Totality, by definition.
Now, I know you are going to jump and down here and scream "metaphysics!", but you need to understand what is being done here. The intention is not to create a metaphysical system as such, but to use these tautological truths as jack-hammers to dismantle our deepest delusions regarding our own experiences. They are throwaway tools whose purpose is to take us beyond all metaphysical abstractions.
DQ: - Secondly, when you say that a conclusion is "only true if there is a mind to hold it", you're confusing the existence of a conclusion with its truth. In reality, even if a truthful conclusion were to appear only momentarily in the mind, its truth would still extend into eternity regardless.
For example, if I affirm in a particular moment that the tree which appears to exist outside my window does in fact appear to be a tree existing outside my window, then that is a truth which is true for all time. Even though my affirmation of this appearance is only momentary, the truth of it is universal and absolute. Nothing can ever undermine it.
Neil: I'm skeptical David. If I defined 30 trillion arbitrary definitions would I have just created 30 trillion "absolute truths"? That is 30 trillion truths that are simply a waste of space, especially after I die and nobody else knew them.
You're right, there are literally an infinite number of absolute truths that could be discovered, almost all of them trivial or meaningless. It is those few truths which go to the heart of Nature and cut to the very core of who we are as individuals that interest the spiritual philosopher.
-
