Is the Absolute a Logical Concept?

[Eric England]

The two most fundamental principles of existence or being - are the Absolute & Relative. They're at the core of philosophy, physics, and religion. Although this isn't universally recognized as such, if it's even recognized much at all.

Each has it's nature and place. The Absolute's nature, is that it doesn't have anything outside of itself. The Relative's nature, is that it does have something outside of itself.

The Absolute is outside the Relative. There is no absolute inside the universe. Searching for one is fruitless.

As for the Absolute not having anything outside itself - this means anything. No cause, no space, no time, and not even absolutely nothing.

The Absolute stands alone, with no place to be, and it faces inward.

There are two reasons for this.

1. If absolutely nothing existed - there wouldn't be absolutely nothing.
If nonexistence existed - there wouldn't be nonexistence.
Either way it's described - it's simply impossible.

2. "Absolutely nothing (nonexistence) being impossible" - is not the cause of the Absolute.
Not even the impossibility - is the outside the Aboslute.
Absolutely nothing or nonexistence is impossible - inside the Absolute.

If I'm not mistaken, this is logical proof of the Absolute (which is not necessarily its name).

As for logical proof of the Relative, and the logic of the interrelationship and interaction between the two, it's best if I refer you an article length PDF at this website.

http://www.logicofexistence.com

Don't be fooled by the style of formatting you'll find. It was rigorously decided upon, to make the information as universally accessible as possible.

 

[octelcogopod]

Could be.. Could science find this Absolute?

 

[-Job-]

1. If absolutely nothing existed - there wouldn't be absolutely nothing.
If nonexistence existed - there wouldn't be nonexistence.
Either way it's described - it's simply impossible.

In my opinion that is just play of words and not a rational statement. Consider that "nothing" can only "exist" as a concept. That is the only flaw to "nothing". If "nothing" were allowed to not exist as a concept, then, the existence of nothing would not be something, and the contradiction would be avoided.
But a concept requires a mind, which is a "something", and "nothing" does not allow for "somethings". In "absolute nothing" there are no concepts, so the concept of "absolute nothing" does not itself exist, which of course does not mean that there isn't "absolute nothing", it means that there is "absolute nothing", just that no one knows about it (because no one is around, get it? ) . See, no contradiction.

 

[Eric England]

Could be.. Could science find this Absolute?

First of all, theoretical science hasn't found anything. They say on the one hand they've unified three of the forces and are looking to unify gravity along with it into a unified theory of everything. On the other hand they will also say they're not even sure there is force.

Secondly, they're looking for an absolute substance inside the universe. A building block as it were. They haven't found it, nor will they.

Thirdly, they haven't found the before, after, or moment of the supposed big bang. I could go on, but in essence, they haven't found anything.

They found a lot of relative things that they use in practical application, but they are still lost in the wilderness when it comes to what they are ultimately looking for.

Science is not the be all end all of discovery.

 

[Eric England]

In my opinion that is just play of words and not a rational statement. Consider that "nothing" can only "exist" as a concept. That is the only flaw to "nothing". If "nothing" were allowed to not exist as a concept, then, the existence of nothing would not be something, and the contradiction would be avoided.
But a concept requires a mind, which is a "something", and "nothing" does not allow for "somethings". In "absolute nothing" there are no concepts, so the concept of "absolute nothing" does not itself exist, which of course does not mean that there isn't "absolute nothing", it means that there is "absolute nothing", just that no one knows about it (because no one is around, get it? ) . See, no contradiction.

Are you aware that there are three types of nothing? Have you read any of the PDF?

There is relatively nothing, which is the partner of something relative. They are the foundation for a relative and infinite universe (no boundary). This is also what is perceived as the moment after the big bang.

There is nothing, which is inside of and the absence of, everything. This is what is perceived as the moment before the big bang. In a sense, but not literally, the boundary of the universe.

Then there is the impossibility of absolutely nothing. A condition you haven't quite wrapped your mind around. It is however, attainable. There is no reason why we are not allowed to step outside the Absolute with our minds. The mind is a wonderful thing. And so is the Absolute.

 

[-Job-]

No, i haven't read the PDF because I'm not concerned with it yet, I'm targeting the quoted text.
In my opinion the flaw in your text, that i quoted, is that you're not considering absolute nothing. You're considering "nothing" while keeping yourself around. Clearly, if you are around to investigate this "nothing", then you'll identify its existence, resulting in a contradiction. But the fact that you're around when there ought to be "absolute nothing" is what produces a contradiction in the first place.
Your argument is just a play of words, and not unambiguous.

 

[octelcogopod]

You're saying the "fundamental building block" can't be found?
Why wouldn't it?
If there was indeed a building block, then observation and prediction would surely be able to find it, because it is a part of the universe.

 

[Eric England]

In my opinion the flaw in your text, that i quoted, is that you're not considering absolute nothing. You're considering "nothing" while keeping yourself around. Clearly, if you are around to investigate this "nothing", then you'll identify its existence, resulting in a contradiction. But the fact that you're around when there ought to be "absolute nothing" is what produces a contradiction in the first place.
Your argument is just a play of words, and not unambiguous.

Is "keeping oneself around" an absolute limitation? Is one necessarily limited to seeing only the relative? The nothing that is the absence of everything, but not does not occur outside of or before it, but in conjunction with it?

Is it impossible to see outside of or before, anything at all? To the nonexistent nature of absolutely nothing and the existent nature of the Absolute?

It may seem impossible, but it isn't.

 

[loseyourname]

Eric, is there anyway you could frame this discussion in terms of the neo-platonic and medieval thinking from which it seems to develop? That might help some of us to get somewhat of a better grasp on your ideas. I've actually been complaining about the lack of education in these topics available to anyone not studying at a Jesuit university in the United States. Though I've received a more than adequate education in ancient and modern philosophy, the entire medieval period just gets glossed over and there really aren't even very many professors who are qualified to teach it in the first place. Unfortunately, the educations we have at this forum for the most part make it difficult for us to discuss ideas like yours.

By the way, you're right down the street from me in San Rafael. The member Les Sleeth, who also lives in this area, is really the only person I can think of around here that seems to be well educated in this particular brand of philosophical thinking.

 

[Eric England]

You're saying the "fundamental building block" can't be found? Why wouldn't it? If there was indeed a building block, then observation and prediction would surely be able to find it, because it is a part of the universe.

I'm not saying, if there is one we can't find it. I'm saying there isn't one to be found.

The nature of the Absolute & Relative don't allow it. Looking for a building block means looking for an absolute. The indivisible without a comparative. A single "something" without an outside. All that will ever be found is the relative.

 

[Eric England]

In my opinion the flaw in your text, that i quoted, is that you're not considering absolute nothing.

I am considering absolute nothing.

You're considering "nothing" while keeping yourself around. Clearly, if you are around to investigate this "nothing", then you'll identify its existence, resulting in a contradiction.

Your'e assuming that this is a contradition. What is the nature and limits of experience?

But the fact that you're around when there ought to be "absolute nothing" is what produces a contradiction in the first place.
Your argument is just a play of words, and not unambiguous.

I actually said, there isn't absolutely nothing. If absolutely nothing was possible, there wouldn't be an absolute something, which would mean there wouldn't be the relative, which would mean there wouldn't be any existence at all.

 

[Eric England]

Eric, is there anyway you could frame this discussion in terms of the neo-platonic and medieval thinking from which it seems to develop? That might help some of us to get somewhat of a better grasp on your ideas.

It actually goes back further, to Parmenides. In the East, it goes back much further than that. In both cases the essence has been lost. In the East the essence is, "The absolute is outside of all things and not inside of any thing". In the west, in the writings of Parmenides in 500bc.

Here's a quote from wikipedia that sums it up... "Even Plato himself, in the Sophist, refers to the work of "our Father Parmenides" as something to be taken very seriously and treated with respect. Socrates said that Parmenides ALONE among the wise (Protagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Epicharmus, and Homer) denied that everything is change and motion."

I would add, that the truly significant thing Parmenides did, was to establish the Absolute. He saw the impossibility of nonexistence and the timeless inevitability of a single immutable existence. He saw it as all around equally, so thought of it as a perfect sphere. He didn't know how to get inside the sphere and establish the principles of movement and plurality, so his quest ended there.

Ever since then, we have been bouncing around inside the Parmenide's sphere trying to find an absolute. And in the East, the same thing has been happening, but for a lot longer. Bouncing around inside the absolute, thinking it's somewhere that it isn't.

The absolute is outside and the relative is inside. There is not absolutely nothing, outside the absolute something. If there was, there would be no absolute and existence in any form or fashion, would never be.

The absolute is beyond any relative concept. There isn't absolutely nothing beyond the universe (the infinite), so what is there? Nor is there absolutely nothing inside of the universe (the infinitesimal), so what is there?

I'm not trying to hawk my PDF, it's free. I do ask for donations, but the point of it, is the information contained within it.

Philosophy, science, and religion all boil down to understanding the nature of and the interrelationship between, the Absolute & Relative.

http://www.logicofexistence.com

 

[moving finger]

http://www.logicofexistence.com

nice poetry

but disappointing as a rational and coherent argument

Best Regards

 

[Eric England]

nice poetry but disappointing as a rational and coherent argument Best Regards

Breaking compound sentences (ideas) into separate lines (idea) is not poetry, it's a logical methodology.

To call it irrational and incoherent, without bothering to reference even one point, is a bit elitist, it would seem.

Do you honestly believe that absolutely nothing exists? If you do, then of course it would all seem irrational and incoherent.

If you're right, then you have just single-handedly destroyed all of existence.

 

[RelativeGravity]

In my opinion that is just play of words and not a rational statement. Consider that "nothing" can only "exist" as a concept. That is the only flaw to "nothing". If "nothing" were allowed to not exist as a concept, then, the existence of nothing would not be something, and the contradiction would be avoided.
But a concept requires a mind, which is a "something", and "nothing" does not allow for "somethings". In "absolute nothing" there are no concepts, so the concept of "absolute nothing" does not itself exist, which of course does not mean that there isn't "absolute nothing", it means that there is "absolute nothing", just that no one knows about it (because no one is around, get it? ) . See, no contradiction.

Nice! That's along the lines of what I was thinking, but I had no idea how to put it into words.

 

[Eric England]

it means that there is "absolute nothing", just that no one knows about it (because no one is around, get it? ) . See, no contradiction.

Ok, so nobody is around to get that there is absolute nothing.

Nobody would be around to get anything. There wouldn't be anything to get. There would be no universe. There would be no cause. There would be no uncaused. There would be absolute nothing.

Could you possibly point me in the direction of this absolute nothing? I wouldn't mind not being around to get it. I'll take the risk.

In the meantime... "why is there something rather than absolutely nothing?"

 

[Canute]

Has anyone come across Spencer Brown's Laws of Form? He puts the case more mathematically but in effect tries to prove that the something/nothing distinction is conceptual, not ontological. Francis Bradley attempted a more philosophical proof.

Here are a couple of interesting expressions of this view.

"The implied Unicity, the totality of undivided mind, is itself a concept of its own division or duality, for relatively – relativity being relative to what itself is – it cannot be conceived or known at all. All that could ever be known about it is simply that, being Absolute, it must necessarily be devoid of any kind of objective existence whatsoever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its relative appearance." (Wei Wu Wei - In Ramesh Balsekar's The Ultimate Understanding)

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities." (Carl Jung, VII Sermones ad Moruos).

 

[Eric England]

There seems to be a confusion over "nothing".

The nothing that is always referred to by others, is NOT absolutely nothing.

There is no definition of it, other than "impossible."

A relative nothing is another story. There's a big difference.

If absolutely nothing was possible... there wouldn't be a universe or a God (if there is one).

 

[Canute]

Well said.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm really going to have to get my hands on that book, Canute. It's sounded intriguing to me since you first brought it up two years ago. I've still only seen online descriptions of it; diagrams and such.

 

[Eric England]

Well said.

Thank you – I try.

To take it a step further – since there isn't "absolutely nothing", there's "something" absolute. No cause needed. No "something coming from nothing". (there are three "nothings" – absolute/relatively absolute/relative)

This Absolute has no outside whatsoever. In one sense, it's a point without a position – a dimensionless point. It doesn't occupy a particular place or portion, of something outside of itself.

In another sense, it is One (quantity) and Existence (quality). Each of these is an absolute in it's own right, but they come as a pair – so they're relative to each other.

Everything & nothing (no-thing) on the other hand, are a lesser case (relatively absolute). It is widely suspected that everything somehow came from nothing and might someday return there – which is not the case. Nothing is the absence of everything – it only occurs inside of it. Nothing is never outside of everything – the two of them never intermingle.

The universe is not everything coming from or returning to nothing. The universe does not contain everything or nothing. There is no "big bang or crunch". Black holes are not capable of turning everything into nothing (Hawking radiation). Mass (matter/energy) is not created (everything from nothing) or destroyed (nothing from everything).

The universe is inside of everything & nothing. They are relatively absolute and the universe is only relative. It only reaches as far as something relative & relatively nothing. This is why space is not empty and matter is not solid. The universe is the infinite intermingling of the two.

Infinity is not all it's cracked up to be. Infinity is just something that never "actually" happens – and so is the universe. They are both without beginning or end. They "appear to happen" and hooray for that – but they never actually begin or end.

And to finish off – the Absolute (one/existence) has a single (R)elative inside of it, at its center. The only place inside of a dimensionless point is the center – everywhere. This single Relative is zero (quantity) and is in respect to or reflects, existence (quality). It too is a dimensionless point.

Between these two dimensionless points (one & zero) – is the universe inside of everything & nothing. Although the universe appears to leave the center and have dimension (space, time, mass, force etc.) – it never does. No matter what the size, density, or charge of a "dimensional point" – it is no more moving away from center than moving towards it. It just seems to. The universe only happens in a "sense".

 

[Eric England]

In my opinion the flaw in your text, that i quoted, is that you're not considering absolute nothing. You're considering "nothing" while keeping yourself around. Clearly, if you are around to investigate this "nothing", then you'll identify its existence, resulting in a contradiction. But the fact that you're around when there ought to be "absolute nothing" is what produces a contradiction in the first place.
Your argument is just a play of words, and not unambiguous.

One thing I didn't mention earlier, because I hadn't thought of it as such, but your argument lead me to it (thank you) – is exactly why one can see there isn't absolutely nothing outside of (in space or time) something absolute.

The reason is – the Absolute is invisible. One can see through it to see there is no outside to it (absolutely nothing) – all without leaving one's chair. Call this figurative rather than literal if you like – but what is figurative and what is literal? Maybe we have them backwards?

 

[Canute]

Loseyourname

I'm glad you're interested. It's definitely worth a read. I don't understand the mathematics well, but the principles underlying it are fairly straightforward. He opens the book with a quote from Wei Wu Wei (aka Irish philosopher Terence Gray) which is directly relevant to Eric's argument.

"The implied Unicity, the totality of undivided mind, is itself a concept of its own division or duality, for relatively – relativity being relative to what itself is – it cannot be conceived or known at all.

All that could ever be known about it is simply that, being Absolute, it must necessarily be devoid of any kind of objective existence whatsoever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its relative appearance."

 

[Eric England]

"... being Absolute, it must necessarily be devoid of any kind of objective existence whatsoever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its relative appearance."

"Being Absolute", i.e. the Absolute – is objective existence.

It is not "the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its relative appearance" – it is beyond this totality. Simply put, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

"...That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities." (Carl Jung, VII Sermones ad Moruos).

Endless and eternal only refer to infinity. There are qualities (and quantities) beyond infinity. The Absoute is beyond that.

 

[Canute]

Yeah. But we all have to struggle with the limits of language. I'm sticking with Wei Wu Wei's words by the way, so perhaps we disagree about some of the details.

 

[Eric England]

I'll take one guess – do you think the sum of the parts is equal to the whole? Isn't that what his words are saying?

 

[Canute]

This is tricky stuff and I wouldn't like to say I understand his words properly. But my feeling is that he is saying there are no parts. This would be in line with Leibnitz's argument that a continuum cannot have parts. To put it another way, the parts exist only relatively, and what is absolute has no relative existence because there is nothing to which it is relative. From this comes the oft-stated but paradoxical proposition that strictly-speaking what is absolute neither exists not not-exists. (Because our notion of 'exists' is relative to non-existence). For example, Stanislav Grof speaks of 'its' existence/non-existence in his book 'The Cosmic Game' and suggests that this apparent paradox can only be resolved in direct experience, partly because to discursive reasoning the idea is absurd. Is this your view also?

 

[Eric England]

Very good response. In hindsight, I shouldn't have tossed in that analogy using the word "parts". I don't think I had previously stated the difference between actual and apparent – separation and divisibility, which I won't get into right now.

I would like to make a blanket statement before going on. In all disciplines, there has always been a lack of understanding about relative and absolute logic (thinking), and the thinking that encompasses both.

Yes, what is absolute has nothing to which it is relative, but only outside of itself. There is no "absolute nothing" out there. To experience this directly and through reason are both accessible. On the one hand, it is perfectly reasonable, to state that absolute nothing is impossible and why (which I have already). On the other, it is perfectly actual, to be able to see outside the Absolute, because it is invisible (perfectly clear). I know this is a terribly fine point to make, but thanks to you, that's what we are trying to do.

As for the "paradoxical proposition that strictly-speaking what is absolute neither exists not not-exists." – I gather you meant to say "neither exists NOR not-exists".

Using relative thinking, this is a paradox – using absolute thinking, it is not. The Absolute is outside of ALL. It's first and foremost quality and quantity (within itself) are each absolute, but they are outside of each other, so they are relative to each other. (tricky point)

It's quantity is one. In science, as you know, they call this a dimensionless number.

It's quality is existence. In science, as you know, they call a dimensionless point (having no extent), a point with one dimension (a position in sapce). This is true in relative thinking, but is not in absolute thinking.

There is a dimesionless point that science has not considered yet. A point that has no position in a "space" outside of itself. A point that has no outside. A point that is an absolute one and an absolute existence. The trick is, to remember the Absolute is always outside of even this.

Which brings us to (actually, we've already arrived at), the idea that the Absolute is not relative to anything outside of itself, but IS relative to what is inside itself. This is one of the tricky things to understand.

In short, it has a hierarchy of quantites & qualities within itself (previously detailed), that appear to be divisible and separate (parts), but are actually connected as a unified whole, to themselves and to the Absolute.

I will stop here. The connection, if you're interested, is explainable.

PS: One other thing. Inside the Absolute is the true reality of non-existence. Absolutely nothing (non-existence) is impossible. All of "existence" is a hierarchy that hasn't been recognized as such, yet.

 

[Canute]

Oh boy, these are tricky issues. I suspect I don't agree with you, but it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting.

Yes, I did mean neither/nor. A typo crept in.

Which brings us to (actually, we've already arrived at), the idea that the Absolute is not relative to anything outside of itself, but IS relative to what is inside itself. This is one of the tricky things to understand.

But inside-outside are relative terms. Can the absolute have relative qualities? Would your inside-outside be equivalent to immanent-transcendent?

 

[Eric England]

But inside-outside are relative terms. Can the absolute have relative qualities? Would your inside-outside be equivalent to immanent-transcendent?

I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but yes – nice.

Transcendent – The Absolute is being, itself.
Immanent – The Absolute, is being itself.

That which is – has no outside.
That which it is "doing" – it does inside.

Is (actual) – is literal, unchanging, indivisible, and invisible.
Doing (potential) – is figurative, changing, divisible and visable.

The Absolute is not contingent outside of itself, but is within itself.
It must contain the relative or it couldn't be absolute.

This is not its law – this is the law of it.
The Absolute has no choice – which is a good thing (choice and infinite are extremely overrated).

There is, however, choice – but I'll stop here.

 

[Canute]

On the whole we seem to agree. Did you know that the Upanishads state that the Absolute is both transcendent and immanent?

 

[Canute]

On the whole we seem to agree. Did you know the Upanishads state that the Absolute is both transcendent and immanent?

 

[Eric England]

It's been a long time since I studied the Upanishads, so I don't remember, but if I took anybody's word on it, it would be yours. Actually, I do have a copy, I should look it up.

In the Bhagavad Gita it says the biggest secret of all is that I am outside of all things and not inside of any thing – my eternal form is.

I'm wondering if by transcendent and immanent, it might be referring to personal and impersonal?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm wondering if by transcendent and immanent, it might be referring to personal and impersonal?

At least as used in Christian theology, immanent means completely present in everything in the universe and transcendent means beyond the universe. Taking those seriously and requiring them to be "superposed" rather than alternated would seem to require a modification of the meaning or nature of "universe".

 

[Eric England]

At least as used in Christian theology, immanent means completely present in everything in the universe and transcendent means beyond the universe. Taking those seriously and requiring them to be "superposed" rather than alternated would seem to require a modification of the meaning or nature of "universe".

I would agree. That which is immanent is inside and that which is transcendent is outside. If I take your meaning of "alternate" correctly, I don't agree they alternate.

 

[Canute]

My feeling is that this is not to do with personal/impersonal, except in the sense that these would also be two aspects of the Absolute rather than what it is in itself.

Is not the the idea that the Absolute has an inside and an outside logically incoherent? It seems that way to me. Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy has a good section on this so I'll go remind myself what he says.

I think superposition is not quite the right way to look at this. The Absolute simply does not have these properties. For the writers of the Upanishads the 'Absolute' has all properties and no properties, which is confusing. It is just a question of how we conceive of it. (Here again the good old 'wave-particle' serves as an analogy.)

 

[Eric England]

I love this tricky stuff. I'll admit I got a bit lost trying to satisfy definitions.

Remember I said earlier, that the Absolute has NO outside, of or to itself. As difficult as the discussion gets at times, this has not changed.

The question of impersonal and personal, is how we prefer to perceive the Absolute. Although, often times it is not a preference, but a limitation. These are "properties".

"Having properties and no properties", is actaully different than the wavicle senario. Wave is property and particle is property. That is a whole other discussion.

As for the Absolute...
To say it has "no properties", is to define it as being beyond all properties.
To say it has "all properties", is to define it as containing these properties.

If this is true, now we have to connect the two. Let's get tricky.

In the relative world, a container remains separate from it's contents – at the very least, by a difference in "charge". If it didn't, the contents would intermingle with it and end up on the outside, and the container would "leak". This means there is a "boundary" between them.

The Absolute is different, however. Although differentiated from, it is not separate from it's contents. There is no need for a boundary – there is no outside for the contents to go (very subtle point). This absence of a boundary, is how it can be said to have all properties and none.

 

[Canute]

That's not how I see the all properties/no properties issue, but I half agree.

What I meant by mentioning the wave-particle thing is that we could say that waves and particles are two properties of X, but as these are aspects it X itself does not inherently have these properties. This is why it seems a useful metaphor. But maybe it's a misleading one, I'm not sure.

Here's an interesting comment from the Isha Upanishad

"Into deep darkness fall those who follow the immanent. Into deeper darkness fall those who follow the transcendent.

One is the outcome of the transcendent, and another is the outcome of the immanent. Thus we have heard from the ancient sages who explained the truth to us.

He who knows both the transcendent and the immanent, with the immanent overcomes death and with the transcendent reaches immortality."

 

[Eric England]

"He who knows both the transcendent and the immanent, with the immanent overcomes death and with the transcendent reaches immortality."

I think "knowing the immanent" refers to understanding that we don't cease to exist at death and there is rebirth – and "knowing the transcendent" refers to understanding that we don't cease to exist at death and there is no need for rebirth. I think the difference boils down the question of will.

As for the case of wave-particle property analogy, X is inside of them and yes, it doesn't have these properties, nor does it have no properties. So, what does it have? The Absolute outside of them has (contains) all properties and no properties.

X is different, however. First of all, as the Absolute has no outside, X has no inside. It doesn't contain all properties or no properties. It is inside all properties and no properties. So what the heck is "X"?

 

[Canute]

Yes, this is the million dollar question. It seems to make sense, as you say in your other thread, that we cannot conceive of the Absolute. To conceive of it we would have to be separate from it and clearly nothing can be separate from the Absolute. If there is any way to answer this question it could only be by means of what Huxley calls 'unitive knowledge', the annihilation of the broken-symmetry of conceiver-conceived, knower-known and so forth. In other words 'nondual' or 'mystical' knowledge.

The late great William James speaks about this.

"This overcoming of the usual barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystic achievement. In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition, hardly altered by differences of clime or creed. In Hinduism, in Neoplatonism, in Sufism, in Christian mysicism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think, and which brings it about that the mystical classics have, as has been said, neither birthday nor native land. Perpetually telling of the unity of man with God, their speech antedates languages, and they do not grow old."

William James
The Varieties of Religious Experience

 

[Eric England]

Yes, this is the million dollar question. It seems to make sense, as you say in your other thread, that we cannot conceive of the Absolute.

I think we're still unclear as to "X". I'd like to change X to F (false), with the Absolute being T (true). F is inside the wave-particle (property duality) and T is outside.

F being < (within) T. T=1 and F =O. For those of you who aren't aware of it, 1 is considered a dimensionless number in mathematics. A dimensionless point, however, is not defined, but a one dimensional point is. It is a point with no extent (dimensions) occupying a position in space. Its position is its one and only dimension.

In this case, T = dimensionless point (presently undefined in physics). The Absolute (T) has no outside (is not in space). It has no extent or environment. A dimensionless point = 1 + existence (quantity & quality). These are its primary "properties". It is indivisible, invisible, and unmovable. It is beyond even all of this.

F = the other (false) absolute. It too is a dimensionless point. It has no inside. F is within T and there is no actual space between them (F is not inside actual space). These two points are actual (literal). Space, as well as time and mass (wavicle), are figurative, not literal (actual).

T and F are different, but united (explainable). F = 0 + reflection (in respect to 1). These are its quantity & quality. It too is indivisible, invisible, and unmovable. Both T and F are beyond their properties. T is outside its properties and F is inside its properties.

In between these two dimsionless points (literal) are all figurative points (space, time, mass). They have "properties". The "appear" to have dimension.

It all really boils down to understanding what is literal and figurative, and how they interrelate. This applies to science, philosophy, and religion.

... what Huxley calls "unitive knowledge". In other words "nondual'" or '"mystical" knowledge.

Nonunitive or dual – figurative? Nondual or mysitcal – literal?

 

[Canute]

Nonunitive or dual – figurative? Nondual or mystical – literal?

I'm not sure yet how you're using the terms but there seems to be some sort of equivalence. The distinction would be between the conceptual and the real, appearance and reality, relative and absolute. Is this what you mean by figurative/literal? ('Unitive knowledge' would be knowledge by identity, i.e. knowledge of the Absolute by overcoming the barriers between the individual and the Absolute and becoming identical with it).

 

[Eric England]

I'm not sure yet how you're using the terms but there seems to be some sort of equivalence. The distinction would be between the conceptual and the real, appearance and reality, relative and absolute. Is this what you mean by figurative/literal?

Yes. I'm trying to equate terms that I don't usually use, with those I do.

The "real" is actual, not appearant (invisible), literal, absolute.
The "conceptual" is not actual, appearant (potentially), figurative, relative.

Conceptual, though, is a word I would use in only a limited sense. The relative is not "concieved", though we can conceive of it.

The Absolute comes in two forms, true (1) and false (0). False is inside of true, at its center, which is everywhere. They are dimensionless points, which have not been defined by physics or mathematics, as of yet. True has no outside and false has no inside.

The relative comprises all other "things" we ever think about, discuss, experience, etc. The universe and additional relative "principles" outside of the universe.

('Unitive knowledge' would be knowledge by identity, i.e. knowledge of the Absolute by overcoming the barriers between the individual and the Absolute and becoming identical with it).

The barriers between the individual and the group, and the True and False, are overcome because two dimensionless points do not contain an actual boundary condition. All boundaries are figurative only.

Becoming identical with the Absolute(s), is limited to "identifying" with them. We are figurative and never become actual. We are dimensional and never become dimensionless. We are infinite and never become 1 or 0. We are relative and never become true or false.

We are in a "reflection" that is outside 0 and inside 1. This causes us to see things backwards, but gives us the potential of seeing things as they actually are.

 

[Canute]

As you say, we both seem to trying to get to grips with each other's terms. But this time I can't make the translation. One problem is your comment: 'We are relative and never become true or false.". But I see true/false as relative terms that cannot apply to the Absolute, only to its aspects.

 

[Eric England]

I see true/false as relative terms that cannot apply to the Absolute, only to its aspects.

I think I’ll number the following, as statements that can be referred to. I think further explanations of this brief, are included in the thread. Let’s remember that the Absolute is just a name for what is beyond the following.

1. There are two dimensionless points (yet to be discoverd) that are actual (literal).
2. These two dimensionless points are united (no boundary).
3. These “points” are without aspect (appearance) and with aspect (direction in which they face). This is the first and formost degree of relationship (relative).
4. These points have “aspects” between them that are in a “figurative hierarchy”.
5. The top of this hierarchy is relatively literal and the bottom is absolutely figurative (with levels in between).
6. The “relatively literal aspects” can be applied to each literal point.
7. 1 & True to one point and 0 & False to the other (contingent absolutes).
8. We (the universe) reflect these aspects absolutely figuratively.
9. 1 & True and 0 & False in the universe are contingent relatives.

The point being, that all is relative, but not all relatives are of the same type or degree (equal). Even the Absolute beyond it all, is relative to all that it is being. The sucka can relate! It can dig it, whether we can dig it or not.

This very well may have an inconsistency that I am entirely open to seeing (considering). My sight is not guaranteed.

 

[Canute]

Sorry, I don't get it. What are these dimensionless points?

 

[Eric England]

Oh great, you would have to pick the tough one! :-)

In short, they are each, one of two things.

1. Absolutely nothing
2. Something absolute

(remember I called them 1/True and 0/False)

In mathematics, 1 is a dimensionless number. 0, though, has not been established as a dimensionless number. "0 is the integer that precedes +1, and follows -1." It has only been established in relative (dimensional) terms.

In Physics, only a one-dimensional point has been established. It's referred to as a spatial point with no extent (dimensionless), but having a position in space (a greater spatial extent), which gives it its one dimension.

When I refer to "dimensionless points", I am speaking of a reality that is beyond the idea of "spatiality". A reality, that to us, might seem non-existent, but is more real than our "reality" of "dimensions" (space/time/mass).

So each of the two points has no "space" inside of it or outside of it. One has no outside and the other no inside, and there is no "space" in between them. And neither on has anything to do with time, mass, or "force".

So, is this simply describing absolutely nothing, what's the point, and I'm nuts?

Or is it describing something absolute? What does an absolute 1/0 and True/False do to the understanding of philosophy and science, even if we can't "detect" them?

 

[Canute]

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at here. Why have two points when you could have one with an inside and an outside? Are you suggesting that what is absolute cannot be accurately called something or nothing?

 

[Eric England]

Having one point with an inside and outside, is relative (infinity). If it has an outside, what is outside of it (ad infinitum)? So, point 1, no outside, but an inside. It encomasses infinity on the greater end of the scale. It is greater than infinite. It is 1/True.

So now to its inside. It has to have a virtually identical point at its core, to encompass infinity on the lesser (infinitesimal) end of the scale. Although it's on the inside, it's not inside the universe (infinity). It is greater than infinity, although it might seem like less. It is 0/False.

Yes, I am saying Absolute cannot be called something or nothing. Absolute does not posit absolute nothing as its opposite or source. Absolute nothing is impossible. Absolute is beyond "absolutely nothing is impossible". Both points are. Is either point something? No.

Just outside (but not separate from) the infinite universe, is everything (not something) & nothing. Nothing is inside (the absence of) everything. The universe only reaches as far as something relative & relatively nothing. This is why matter isn't solid and space isn't empty.

There is one level of relativity outside of everything & nothing (a pair of relatively absolute qualities), and then the final one of 1/True & 0/False (absolutes relative to each other), and then the indescribable... what shall we call it?

 

[Canute]

Still struggling a bit. Would it be roughly equivalent to say that the Absolute has two aspects, the implicate and the explicate, where the implicate is not extended in spacetime and the explicate is? Part of the reason for this suggestion is that if these two points are 'things' this would suggest some sort of dualism whereas if they are aspects this suggests some sort of monism/nonduality.