Is the Absolute a Logical Concept?

[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.

 

[Eric England]

I'm struggling with "implicate and explicate". My sense is, that "extended in space/time" can apply to either one, depending on if you are looking at space/time from the inside out or the outside in.

All, are aspects of a single inconceivable – the name of which, is?

In conceiving all that is conceivable and arriving at the inconceivable, and knowing that it is so; it might seem like we haven't arrived, but haven't we?

What are the implications of what we have passed through and their relationship to what cannot be conceived?

If our goal is to merely conceive (give birth to/create), then we remain chained to an illusion of power. We remain unwitting victims of our viewpoint.

 

[Canute]

I mentioned implicate/explicate because I wondered whether you were proposing something along the lines of David Bohm. He proposes there are these two levels of order in the universe, and this seemed to connect with some of what you said. Maybe not.

I agree with your last point, about being chained to our conceptions and victims of our viewpoint. This seems to me to be what Plato's cave allegory is about. On the rest I'm unclear.

Does your idea represent a theory of cosmogenesis? Are you saying that from a (hypothetical) viewpoint outside of this universe it would be a singularity, and that only from the inside does it appear boundless/infinite?

 

[Eric England]

Does your idea represent a theory of cosmogenesis?

"In Cosmogenesis, Blavatsky describes that the first fundamental principle of the cosmos is "an omnipresent, eternal, boundless and immutable principle on which all speculation is impossible." She uses the term "Absolute" to describe it." – Wikispeedia

The inconceivable, is the only principle on which all speculation is impossible. Omnipresent, eternal, boundless and immutable are terms commonly attributed to the aspcets of the inconceivable, but can be misleading. Immutable is right there at the top, but eternal and boundless only apply to the universe, which is not near the top, and omnipresent suggests the "Absolute" is inside the universe. I think this is a fair interpretation.

Are you saying that from a (hypothetical) viewpoint outside of this universe it would be a singularity, and that only from the inside does it appear boundless/infinite?

Whatever it is, from either viewpoint, it is what it is.

A singularity, supposes an arrival at or departure from, infinite. It's a suprisingly persistent misconception – well, not so suprising actually. We all tend to want something tangible, which boils down to the finite. We tend to believe in beginnings and ends (relationships/observable universe/big bang/black holes etc.), and in singularities in general (tangible "absolutes").

The only singularity is the inconceivable.

Oops, back to infinity. It doesn't have an end or a beginning. There is no end or beginning to infinitesimal or infinite. Infinity never gets to infinitesimal or infinite. Infinity never "actually" happens, nor does the infinite universe.

As Einstein said – "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

To "appear to happen" sheds a completely different light, on every single thing we theorize about the universe. The vast majority of speculation, still revolves around the assumption that "something", must actually be happening.

Einstein again – "The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

This is a good example of understanding one of the major players in the infinity question. If time only appears to happen (happen in only a "sense"), then it has three dimensions, not one.

Time goes backward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the past). Time goes forward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the future).

Time (speed) goes up and down (it can certainly "seem" to). And time goes goes left and right (it can seem to stop and in a sense, put ourselves in the present).

As I've said before, the arrow of time is not any more real than the illusion of time. "Appearing to happen" is "will happen", that's why time seems to only move forward. If it "actually happens", then it would have happened and it would be happening, but it doesn't.

Mass and space are no different, in that they only "appear to happen". We (mass) are not actual, moving in actual space, in an actual direction of future.

Infinite time, mass, and space only appear to happen. They never depart from a "point" or arrive at one.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

 

[Canute]

Ah. Now I have a much better idea of what you're suggesting. I agree that words like omnipresent, eternal etc. would refer only to aspects of the absolute and so would be misleading. It would be more accurate to say, and I think Blavatsky would have agreed, that the Absolute has all aspects (attributes) and no aspects depending on ones viewpoint, and that because of this even the term 'Absolute' is misleading. Buddhists call it the 'unconditioned element', and this would be the only dhamma (phenomenon) that is real (as opposed to epiphenomenal).

A singularity, supposes an arrival at or departure from, infinite. It's a suprisingly persistent misconception – well, not so suprising actually. We all tend to want something tangible, which boils down to the finite. We tend to believe in beginnings and ends (relationships/observable universe/big bang/black holes etc.), and in singularities in general (tangible "absolutes").

Agreed. Something that is prior to time and space cannot be said to have a size or a duration. It seems to me that if physicists could grasp this point nonlocal effects would become explicable.

The vast majority of speculation, still revolves around the assumption that "something", must actually be happening.

I agree again. Do you know Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness? This forms the philosophical foundation of Mahayana Buddhism, and it states clearly that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

Einstein again – "The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Yes, just as Nagarjuna proves. I've always assumed this is one of the reasons Einstein thought highly of Buddhism.

This is a good example of understanding one of the major players in the infinity question. If time only appears to happen (happen in only a "sense"), then it has three dimensions, not one.

Can it have dimensions if it is an illusion?

Time goes backward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the past). Time goes forward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the future).

This seems to contradict the view of time you express above, in which there is no past and future. When we remember the past we do so in the present, and when we anticipate the future we do so in the present. One Sufi master, asked how a true sage can be recognised, replies that for the true sage there is no other time other than the time they are in.

As I've said before, the arrow of time is not any more real than the illusion of time. "Appearing to happen" is "will happen", that's why time seems to only move forward. If it "actually happens", then it would have happened and it would be happening, but it doesn't.

For Buddhists time is a dependent set of relations, not an entity in its own right. What is more, these relations are between phenomena that themselves have no inherent existence. Is this also what you're suggesting?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

An illusion yes, but persistent I'm not so sure. Persistence implies time, and clearly nothing exists in the past or the future.

This is a point Nagarjuna addresses closely. The persistence of a phenomenon in a world of constant change implies that the phenomenon has a part that changes in time and an essence that does not. Buddhists deny that any such essence exists, consistent with our inability to identify one.

We seem to be arriving at an agreement. What do you think?

regards
Canute

 

[Eric England]

Ah. Now I have a much better idea of what you're suggesting... We seem to be arriving at an agreement. What do you think?

I does seem like it. You have brought up many excellent points that have required me to "reproof" and they're holding up well, except for using the term "Absolute" as you pointed out. I'm thinkin' on that one.

I agree that words like omnipresent, eternal etc. would refer only to aspects of the absolute and so would be misleading.

Omnipresent is more misleading than the others. It causes the most damage to mankind. I won't elaborate.

Agreed. Something that is prior to time and space cannot be said to have a size or a duration. It seems to me that if physicists could grasp this point nonlocal effects would become explicable.

I would add mass into the mix as well. The problem lies in the idea of "prior". They need to replace it with >.

I agree again... that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

There are two common misunderstandings about this. Some take it as "not existing" or "never happens". It causes confusion if "really" (actually) is not understood for what it is.

The other misundertannding is that we are still under the assumption there is one form of "nothing". If the same nothing is used to understand the "unconditioned element", then it cannot be understood. "Nothing really exists", if misunderstood as absolute nothing, will disprove the certainty of the "absolute something".

Can it have dimensions if it is an illusion?

Being an illusion is exactly why is has dimensions. Dimensionless is > dimensional. The center (dimensionless point) of the "Absolute" is the only place inside it (for reasons I won't elaborate on). Since it is the only place, it is everywhere. Mass, space, and time ("force" as well) "appear" to move from center and take on dimension (also rotate), but in reality, they are moving towards center at the same "time" (gravity).

This seems to contradict the view of time you express above, in which there is no past and future. When we remember the past we do so in the present, and when we anticipate the future we do so in the present. One Sufi master, asked how a true sage can be recognised, replies that for the true sage there is no other time other than the time they are in.

The present is no more actual that the past and future. If you try to locate it, you will find it to be nebulous. "Be here now" is good philosophy up to a point, but it breaks down under close inspection. "Be" and "now" are part of the illusion.

For Buddhists time is a dependent set of relations, not an entity in its own right. What is more, these relations are between phenomena that themselves have no inherent existence. Is this also what you're suggesting?

I would say yes.

An illusion yes, but persistent I'm not so sure. Persistence implies time, and clearly nothing exists in the past or the future.

Persistent in the sense of stubborn. The hanging on to what is an illusion, as a reality, that keeps us from stepping into > to find the reality beyond (behind) the illusion.

... the persistence of a phenomenon in a world of constant change implies that the phenomenon has a part that changes in time and an essence that does not. Buddhists deny that any such essence exists, consistent with our inability to identify one.

Change in time, is no different than change in mass or space. No matter how one organizes them, two of them do not change within the third. They are all infinite.

The essence is not a part of the phenomenon. It is >. The phenomenon has no essence in itself. That is the illusion. What seems to be within the phenomenon is actually beyond it. 0/False at center, in respect to (reflecting) 1/True, is the essence. It is the dimensionless reality that contains a dimensional illusion.

There is no separation between the two, although there apprears to be one. Again, I won't elaborate.

As for using the term "Absolute", I think if it's termed "the Absolute", it rises above and beyond it's aspects; even though some of them are described as absolute (qualities & quantities). The name of the inconceivable is up for grabs. I've chosen what I have, for reasons of consistency and to stay away form any preconceived notions.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay, guys, we're getting some serious complaints of crackpot versions of scientific and mathematical propositions being employed here. Time to shut it down.