Twoness: A Theory for the Basis of Order found in Ancient Wisdom

[sameandnot]

If one must reason successfully to make progress in philosophy, that doesn't mean it is superior to intuitive expressions. It's just that there are appropriate places to practice the different ways to communicate. Not much you are saying helps us reason about the subject at hand. Progressing via reason can be grueling, but then it can help one learn how to communicate with those who only/primarily trust reason, and it gives the brain a good workout too.

surely, you are absolutely correct.
in such a thread, my post was not, perhaps, entirely appropriate. but there must be a point, through the course of one's personal journey through reason, where doubt is distinguished. reason, we can all agree is not the end in itself, but is, rather, a means to an end. once reaching said end, reasoning about it is superfluous. so, to what end, do we rationalize?

reason is surely limited and inherently dualistic. (reason/non-reason)
if we do not look beyond reason (which is to say transcend... if only momentarily) how can one rationally talk about the One from whence the Two (duality) has issued. such is idle speculation.
do not get me wrong, though... i do not mean to degrade reason in such a way, as many are dependant upon it for psychological, et. al, sustanence, so i regret posting with such a sense of disregard for it.

but i pose the question again: to what end do we rationalize?
rationalizing is always "for"; it's an "in order to..."
to gain insight into the Nature, perhaps?

is it with the intention of being free in the knowing of "what is"? the truth of it? or is it, in the end, meant to provide a shield against what is?

do you see? i am asking: are we rationalizing in order to live unaffectedly? happily? freely? knowingly?

if the answer to this questions is "yes" then i might point out that the idea of its being a "means to an end" is somewhere, fundamentally flawed.
as unaffectedness, happiness, freedom, knowing, are the first stage of the journey. they are not reached through any means; they are actualized in the present; right now. then the "work" that there is left to do, is to see the hindrances (by one's relationship to them) which present themselves, and prevent the continual experience of freedom, knowingness, happiness, etc.

if it is freedom that you are after, then be free now, because no amount of rationalizing one's unfreedom will provide the desired state.

this post, it appears to me, is the quintessence of reason.

if the means to "peace" is "war", what we will always have is more of the same; more wars.

i guess i am saying that: the means is the end.
the means to freedom is freedom itself. the means to peace is peace itself. this is pure reason, i am certain.

so if we are the One (what could not be the One?) the best way to Know it is to be it. but maybe this is not relevant (though it appears obviously to be relevant, by me of course)

but, you are right les.
what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hehe but that is exactly my point.
1. All ontological discussions end in infinite regress.
2. All theories without an uncreated foundation must end in infinite regress.
3. We can't prove eternity nor infinity, because if this esse substance only has a few properties like potentiality for dynamics, then we can't tell that it has been eternal shall we ever observe it. (How to tell from esse that it is eternal?)
4. What is left of esse then, if we can't ever prove it is eternal or infinite, and all theories MUST end in infinite regress?

I understand that you (or anyone) can forever ask "but where did THAT come from." Yet it does not offer a solution, just an eternal problem.

The idea of this discussion is to say "let's suppose." Now, people theorizing about origins start that way all the time, and the most popular origin theories more or less offer a choice between the universe bubbling up out of quantum fluctuations (mechanics), or God. If you've read much philosophy, you know there hasn't been much variation of any sort in origin theories since the Greeks.

When you insist that we must have a prior cause to everything that exists, then you yourself have determined only infinite regress is possible. You don't have to insist all existence is caused, you just choose to. You could, if you so desired, decide to allow that something might be uncaused.

So your argument that all cosmologies must end in infinite regress is a conclusion of your own making, not one demanded by logic.

Further, your argument that infinity, eternity, esse, or any of it is unproven isn't really relevant to what we are doing here. The fact is, all cosmology is unproven, and since that is the case, then the best we can do is try to find a theory that accounts for the most stuff.

So this is (or it's become) a reasoning exercise where we assume the monistic perspective to see what it might offer as a modeling tool. It doesn't matter if we can prove it, that's not at issue. The issue is, might monism account for what we've observed to be true about reality better than any other current model (or might it add something to other models).

In particular two difficult modeling problems with monistic theories is coming up with how all the variety found in creation came from one substance; and what might make it take form to begin with.

What I did was reference ancient observations about the universe -- a presumed underlying polar environment -- and then I've been trying to show how that might a logical first step out of oneness.

I still plan to answer Roamer's question with a suggestion for those two problems (unless, of course, everyone just wants to turn this discussion into a debate about what can be proven ).

 

[Les Sleeth]

reason, we can all agree is not the end in itself, but is, rather, a means to an end. once reaching said end, reasoning about it is superfluous. so, to what end, do we rationalize?

reason is surely limited and inherently dualistic. (reason/non-reason)
if we do not look beyond reason (which is to say transcend... if only momentarily) how can one rationally talk about the One from whence the Two (duality) has issued. such is idle speculation.
do not get me wrong, though... i do not mean to degrade reason in such a way, as many are dependant upon it for psychological, et. al, sustanence, so i regret posting with such a sense of disregard for it.

but i pose the question again: to what end do we rationalize?
rationalizing is always "for"; it's an "in order to..."
to gain insight into the Nature, perhaps?

is it with the intention of being free in the knowing of "what is"? the truth of it? or is it, in the end, meant to provide a shield against what is?

do you see? i am asking: are we rationalizing in order to live unaffectedly? happily? freely? knowingly?

if the answer to this questions is "yes" then i might point out that the idea of its being a "means to an end" is somewhere, fundamentally flawed.
as unaffectedness, happiness, freedom, knowing, are the first stage of the journey. they are not reached through any means; they are actualized in the present; right now. then the "work" that there is left to do, is to see the hindrances (by one's relationship to them) which present themselves, and prevent the continual experience of freedom, knowingness, happiness, etc.

if it is freedom that you are after, then be free now, because no amount of rationalizing one's unfreedom will provide the desired state.

this post, it appears to me, is the quintessence of reason.

if the means to "peace" is "war", what we will always have is more of the same; more wars.

i guess i am saying that: the means is the end.
the means to freedom is freedom itself. the means to peace is peace itself. this is pure reason, i am certain.

so if we are the One (what could not be the One?) the best way to Know it is to be it. but maybe this is not relevant (though it appears obviously to be relevant, by me of course)

but, you are right les.
what are your thoughts on this?

Well, I agree with most of what you say. It isn't through reason that we know the One, but through experience. If it worked, I'd just say "feel from the depths of your being." But it doesn't work.

That's why I see value in learning to reason well. For me the most important thing by far is that a great many people need things to make sense before they are willing to open up to experience. It is useless to wish they were different, that's just how things are.

So if one can learn to reason well, and make one's case with evidence and logic, then it is possible to communicate with a larger audience. Today, with everybody claiming they have special insight, insight which others lack, I think people are being more careful than ever about what they open up to. If you can make sense, if you can be concrete, if you can make your case every step of the way (or at least demonstrate you are dedicated to that), then I believe people will be much more inclined to listen.

 

[octelcogopod]

I understand that you (or anyone) can forever ask "but where did THAT come from." Yet it does not offer a solution, just an eternal problem.
The idea of this discussion is to say "let's suppose." Now, people theorizing about origins start that way all the time, and the most popular origin theories more or less offer a choice between the universe bubbling up out of quantum fluctuations (mechanics), or God. If you've read much philosophy, you know there hasn't been much variation of any sort in origin theories since the Greeks.
When you insist that we must have a prior cause to everything that exists, then you yourself have determined only infinite regress is possible. You don't have to insist all existence is caused, you just choose to. You could, if you so desired, decide to allow that something might be uncaused.
So your argument that all cosmologies must end in infinite regress is a conclusion of your own making, not one demanded by logic.
Further, your argument that infinity, eternity, esse, or any of it is unproven isn't really relevant to what we are doing here. The fact is, all cosmology is unproven, and since that is the case, then the best we can do is try to find a theory that accounts for the most stuff.
So this is (or it's become) a reasoning exercise where we assume the monistic perspective to see what it might offer as a modeling tool. It doesn't matter if we can prove it, that's not at issue. The issue is, might monism account for what we've observed to be true about reality better than any other current model (or might it add something to other models).
In particular two difficult modeling problems with monistic theories is coming up with how all the variety found in creation came from one substance; and what might make it take form to begin with.
What I did was reference ancient observations about the universe -- a presumed underlying polar environment -- and then I've been trying to show how that might a logical first step out of oneness.
I still plan to answer Roamer's question with a suggestion for those two problems (unless, of course, everyone just wants to turn this discussion into a debate about what can be proven ).

I agree, with most of it.
Saying it is my choice that anything is infinitelty regressive isn't really true.
The reason so many people ask themselves "but where did THAT come from?" is because well, cause and effect/determinism brings a cause to everything.
I don't think this is something just limited to humans, I think humans think like that because it is the way the universe functions.
I think if the universe had not been deterministic with cause and effect, there would be chaos, as such when we throw a ball at the wall, we expect it to bounce back.
Now, huamsn constantly think like this "if I do THIS then THAT happens."
It's just the way things work.

This of course leads to infite regression.
Whether or not this is a human perceived creation is a bigger question, in my opinion.
See when you propose the question that there is some substance that is eternal and infinite, that doesn't really show anything, because it's just the other humanistic alternative to cause and effect, while theu niverse very might well function in some other way.
For all we know sub atomic particles could be this esse substance, since we wouldn't have known the difference anyway.

You say the point of this discussion isn't to prove anything, but what does that help?
I've come to the conclusion that such philosophical discussion is worthless, the only real answers we will ever have comes from science, observation and elimination of probability.
That's just my personal preference and you are welcomed to disagree of course, but think about it for a second.

 

[quantumcarl]

I'm not sure how much of this thread you've had time to read, but I would agree that interdependence points to oneness.

In terms of modeling monistically, the idea is that if there is one absolute ground state of existence out of which all thing arise, then how does it arise? The idea of "twoness" is to suggest the first step from oneness is various types of oscillatory dynamics. In other words, if the one "stuff" (oneness) is vibratory, and if it can be made to vibrate a variety of different ways (including faster), then we might have a basis for the one to assume form.

As it so happens, ancient philosophers have been suggesting there is an underlying polarity (which is twoness) for millenia. I think I remember you are a student of the I Ching, so you might be sympathetic to the idea that possibly its originators were relying on basic, underlying pattern to create that wisdom.

I would love to do a thread just to ask the question why the I Ching "works." I have thought about it many times, except I know few people (especially around here) would know if or agree it "works." I have been profoundly influenced from reading it daily for 25 years to see the balance point of things, and to be sensitive to polarities.

Anyway, my point is that nothing I am suggesting about twoness contradicts oneness. I am suggesting twoness is a potential manifestation of the one.

As I remember the underlying pattern that the I Ching relies upon to create its wisdom or that "a makes it work" is through "its" study of what it terms "the unnamed way"... which appears to be a monothesiasitc summary and explanation of the interdependence of all things and all states and for the changes observed therein.

The second thing I remember is that there are more than two poles, states or two things and as I have stated in another thread, why settle for East or West when there is also North and South and the infinite multitudes of points residing inbetween.

The extreme poles of any vibration are only notable because of increasing and diminishing incremental poles that occur between the two extreme poles. Using fractal geometry one observes that each pole or point between the most extreame poles holds an equal extremity (as the most extreme poles) in relation to its scale and the scale of its position.

In this case, which of the infinite number of poles within a vibration does one consider the most influencial: the contraction, the expansion or the fractals of these systems that are found within the wave/vibration itself?

Thirdly I would point out that the idea of "twoness arising out of oneness" assumes that there is a sequence of some sort that has taken place or is taking place.

To this I'd make the reminder that assumtion is used in the reasoning of religions. As far as I know, assumtion is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies.

 

[Royce]

1. All ontological discussions end in infinite regress.
2. All theories without an uncreated foundation must end in infinite regress.
3. We can't prove eternity nor infinity, because if this esse substance only has a few properties like potentiality for dynamics, then we can't tell that it has been eternal shall we ever observe it. (How to tell from esse that it is eternal?)
4. What is left of esse then, if we can't ever prove it is eternal or infinite, and all theories MUST end in infinite regress?

Your logic and reasoning is flawed.
Your first state is meaningless as "infinite regress" is an ontological discussion and therefore is itself infinitely regressive. This renders the statement meaningless, logically. It is also a false self limiting statement.

Your second statement is a false assumption. It is a logically true and valid statement that either something came from nothing or something is eternal, without beginning and without end. That something came from literally absolutely nothing without cause or reason is seen but not proven to be absurd. Therefore we are left with something is eternal. There can be no regression. Only if you refuse to accept the possibility of something being eternal can one regress but not to infinity because logically we eventual come to the above statement "something is eternal or something came from nothing." Regression beyond this is impossible and there are no other possible choices.

While we cannot prove something is eternal it is the only logical conclusion possible. Whether we call this something esse, God or whatever is of no logical consequence. Something is eternal by logical necessity. Whether it is true or not can not be empirically known but it is the only logical valid conclusion left to us.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As I remember the underlying pattern that the I Ching relies upon to create its wisdom or that "a makes it work" is through "its" study of what it terms "the unnamed way"... The second thing I remember is that there are more than two poles, states or two things

I opened with a quote from the Tao Te Ching that says: “The created universe is backed by yin and faced by yang, and harmonized by the immaterial Breath [ch’i]”

The I Ching embodies centuries of thinking of what in China is called yin-yang philosophy. While one can find a great many situations in life, all are generalized into either yin or yang. Further, cosmologically the theory was that all polar situations arise from a single underlying polarity the universe exists within. That is what the Tai Chi symbol (the black and white tadpole-like drawing) represents. Tai Chi literally means "mainspring," and in yin-yang philosophy it is the basis of order and change in the universe.

Thirdly I would point out that the idea of "twoness arising out of oneness" assumes that there is a sequence of some sort that has taken place or is taking place.
To this I'd make the reminder that assumtion is used in the reasoning of religions. As far as I know, assumtion is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies.

I don't see how you can say that. Of course it's assumed a sequence is taking place because that's just about all we see in the universe. And it isn't at all accurate to say that assuming sequences "is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies." In fact, just about all science and philosophy does is look for sequences.

The problem, as I've outlined to octelcogopod, is that there is no logical beginning hypothesized for the first sequence. If we start with an uncreated "something" the infinite regress problem is solved, but then the next question becomes what's the first step in the sequence of events that led to our universe.

Because vibration and polarity are part and parcel of every single aspect of creation, I am suggesting that possibly the first step from oneness is some sort of oscillatory dynamic(s).

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree, with most of it.
Saying it is my choice that anything is infinitelty regressive isn't really true.
The reason so many people ask themselves "but where did THAT come from?" is because well, cause and effect/determinism brings a cause to everything.
I don't think this is something just limited to humans, I think humans think like that because it is the way the universe functions.
I think if the universe had not been deterministic with cause and effect, there would be chaos, as such when we throw a ball at the wall, we expect it to bounce back.
Now, huamsn constantly think like this "if I do THIS then THAT happens."
It's just the way things work.

If I were to build a fence, I'd start with a conception and end with the last nail. You can come along in the middle of that project and only want to look at the mechanics of board placement . . . measuring, cutting, nailing, etc. It is your choice not to want to know the role my consciousness has played in erecting the fence, for example, and to only want to focus on the mechanics of the situation.

The same is true of this universe. Some people can see a bigger whole present behind what's most apparent, and understand that what is here now came about through some means we've not yet discovered. Since something from nothing isn't believed to happen in this universe, then whatever the universe's "creator" is, whether mechanics or consciousness, may not obey the same rules we find inside creation.

You say "such philosophical discussion is worthless" but plenty of scientists too are involved in trying to understand what brought about creation, and all of it so far is pure theory. It is useful because if you find an explanation that fits all the facts, then you can use it as a guide to explore other aspects of reality. Relativity is one such example . . . would you say Einstein's theorizing was worthless?

So clinging to science isn't going to save you from the origins dilemma. Of course you can myopically look at things, and by never lifting your head out of the sand stay relatively unaware that something huge and not understood has brought about creation. That's fine if you want to do that, but it doesn't mean philosophical discussion is worthless because you don't want to participate.

 

[sameandnot]

That's why I see value in learning to reason well. For me the most important thing by far is that a great many people need things to make sense before they are willing to open up to experience. It is useless to wish they were different, that's just how things are.

exactly! though i think that one has learned to truly reason well, when they understand the ground that reason stands on. when they have seen the source of reason, from whence it issued, and thereby Know, not only how to reason, but what reason really is.
reasoning alone, will not produce the whole comprehension of reason. in order to actualize Reason, rather than be "just reasoning", but to epidemize reason (stand as a paragon of reason) one must go beyond it, and look at it, again from the "outside"
it is like a person who was born in a town (or country) and never having been beyond its borders, that one's concept of what the town/country (life/Reality, in general) is will be drastically limited; they will be "in the box" as it were; unable to have a more complete view of it, unless they leave and see what is beyond it. upon traveling to a new town or country and experiencing it, that one will be in a better position to know the town from whence he came, having the ability to look from without. now, going back to the original town, the whole experience of the town is different. the people who have never left, do not Know what the town is (as all knowing is relative knowing; in the same exact way that all motion is relative motion). they are "stuck in their box". the people in the town, who never left, are all arguing about town policy, but their scope is limited. what they need is a perspective from "outside", so that the situation of policy may be seen more clearly.
see how this makes sense?
it is a metaphor. in the age of space travel (assuming it occurs) people who have never left earth, will be at a disadvantage, in terms of maturation and their unfolding of knowledge. they will be stuck in the "earth box."
accounts of experiences from without, are helpful. hence, the reason why adventure stories and stories about those such characters (rogue characters, lone rangers, etc.) are enjoyable. they give a taste of what is beyond, from the perspective of one who sees it all very clearly (having transcended all the various circles/boxes of human limitation).
maybe this makes sense to some of you. this is just my account of reason and rationality. i think it is clear and insightful. in essence: one must "go beyond" reason to see it clearly and know it wholly; to really be rational demands that one has gone beyond reason. we go beyond it by entering the One, without reverting to reasoning or rationality. experiencing the One in its true, wholeness. then looking at reason or rationalizing, again, having known the beyond. one may be rationalizing from the beyond, and still not be restricted to solely rational limitations
this is the basis of wisdom.
this was expounded so that all may know, or see, the essence of reason and how wisdom is found.

 

[quantumcarl]

I don't see how you can say that. Of course it's assumed a sequence is taking place because that's just about all we see in the universe. And it isn't at all accurate to say that assuming sequences "is not a mainstay of science nor is it an efficent practice for the philosophies." In fact, just about all science and philosophy does is look for sequences.

Science and Philosophy can no longer rely on the illusion of sequence or heirarchy. This is the stuff for religious and personal, relative realities. The interdependence of all states or things renders the notion of sequence and heirarchy as illusionary and relative to the observer. Religion and personal belief are welcome to this illusion but science and philosophy have an obligation to explore the latest models which describe a simultaneity of existence.

What our limited perception perceives as sequence or heirarchy is a result of our bias as bio-organisms. Our perception is limited by our genetic predisposition to survive in what we see as a "demanding physical environment".

There are examples from certain mysticisms, as unscientific yet intuitive as they are, who also claim that there is
"no beginning and no end", Christianity for one. This conceptual sentiment also supports the idea of an asequencial and non-heirarchial existence that we are all enjoying, simultaneously, at this time, right now.

Believing in the importance of (the illusion of) sequence and that of separation and heirarchy is like believing the sun goes around the Earth because it appears to do so. I believe humans have a duty and a right to study the nature of existence unhampered by illusion.

_______________________
On the subject of "twoness": Two is made up of units of one. In order to have two, we need one and one. This creates a condition of "Threeness" and here's why:

In order to have two, you need one. One does not cease to exist when it is in a unit of two. Therefore a state of Threeness is created by the move to create twoness and this renders twoness non-existent.

 

[Royce]

My Understanding of the Essence of Esse

This is my Understanding on this topic so far.

1. Something is eternal meaning that there is something that is without beginning and without
end.

2. Something being eternal is also atemporal, without time as we experience it. There is only the
one eternal moment. For something to be eternal and temporal is intuitively inconsistent to me.

3. Esse is the term that we are using for that base or ground substance that is eternal.

4. By experience and observation esse is thought to be.
A. Dynamic
B. Vibrate in at least one mode if not in a virtually unlimited number of modes.
C. Esse is perceived as a bright pulsating bright light.
D. Esse is thought to be alive.
E. Esse is thought to be conscious.
F. Esse is thought to be the fundamental substance from which all that is, is made or
derived.

My reasoning on the above.

As esse is eternal and atemporal there is no time which there was no esse nor will there be any time when there is no esse

If esse is alive and conscious then there is and will be no time in which esse was not alive and conscious. It seems to me then that it would not be inconsistent to think of esse as life itself and consciousness itself.

If everything that is, is made of or derived from esse and that esse is real then all that is, is esse and is real. There is only esse. There is only one that is all that is and all that is, is one, esse.

The essence of esse is logically and for all practical purposes that which I have in other threads referred to as the One that is all and all that is the One, God, The Creator and master of the universe that is the universe and the universe is the One and all that is, is real.

I do not mean any of this in any way to be religious or devotional as we understand religion and biblical creationism. I am fully aware that this is considered spiritual as we understand the term.
However, if all is esse and all is real the esse is spiritual, consciousness, and physical all at the same time. These terms are simply describing different states of the same one thing and thus lose there distinctive separate meanings.

There is no duality nor is there a trinity. There is in essence, in esse one, only one and that one is all that is

(By the way, Les, as I was sitting in light meditation last night, what I call contemplation, with this topic and esse on my mind, the thought came to me; "I am esse." It wasn't the I of me, Royce, but the I of "I am." This is what lead me to post this reply. Take as you will for what ever worth it may be or not to you.)

 

[sameandnot]

nice, royce.

 

[octelcogopod]

Your logic and reasoning is flawed.
Your first state is meaningless as "infinite regress" is an ontological discussion and therefore is itself infinitely regressive. This renders the statement meaningless, logically. It is also a false self limiting statement.
Your second statement is a false assumption. It is a logically true and valid statement that either something came from nothing or something is eternal, without beginning and without end. That something came from literally absolutely nothing without cause or reason is seen but not proven to be absurd. Therefore we are left with something is eternal. There can be no regression. Only if you refuse to accept the possibility of something being eternal can one regress but not to infinity because logically we eventual come to the above statement "something is eternal or something came from nothing." Regression beyond this is impossible and there are no other possible choices.
While we cannot prove something is eternal it is the only logical conclusion possible. Whether we call this something esse, God or whatever is of no logical consequence. Something is eternal by logical necessity. Whether it is true or not can not be empirically known but it is the only logical valid conclusion left to us.

I disagree.
First of all, we only see the universe in terms of infinite and cause and effect because we are born that way, and the perhaps the universe functions in such a way, that doesn't mean it ACTUALLY works that way.
Both of these concepts don't have to be some sort of "ultimate choices", they can rather be humanistic creations, created by our simple minds.
And that's part of my point, we just don't know.
The logic of time and space may not be logical outside the universe, or in another universe.
The logic that 1+1 = 2 may not be true there.

For all we know we could be stuffed in some multiverse type of thing where there are multiple branes inside a higher dimension, and then your theory falls through because you could never prove that the higher dimension is made up of esse, nor could you prove that the higher dimension isn't infinitelty regressive as well.

All in all this thesis doesn't hold any water in my opinion, EVEN IF it is logical.
I could say there was an invisible elephant over your head, then I could say that it doesn't matter that I can't prove it, but tell me would that enlighten us in any way?
I'm not saying all philosophical discussion is useless, I'm saying when we get to the point where we nio longer have any water to hold, that it becomes useless.
It's fine to say "hey there may be some eternal substance that created the universe, but bear in mind, we can never prove it nor can we observe it, but it's just an idea."
Instead of giving it names and starting to theorize over things we have no idea about, that's what I object to.

 

[sameandnot]

It's fine to say "hey there may be some eternal substance that created the universe, but bear in mind, we can never prove it nor can we observe it, but it's just an idea."
Instead of giving it names and starting to theorize over things we have no idea about, that's what I object to.

then again... what can we prove to one another?
Knowing and proving are not synonymous terms.

one need not be able to prove, for one to Know.

[you can't prove this statement.]

actually, Real Knowing can never be proven, and that is precisely what makes it Real Knowing. Things that can be "proved" are not Known. The proofs are always incomplete, and are never "proofs" at all. that kind of, proof-based-knowledge is flawed, somewhere fundamentally.

if one knows that "proof" is not existent, then direct Knowing is the only worthy endeavor.

many point the way, but few travel it.

 

[Royce]

I disagree.
First of all, we only see the universe in terms of infinite and cause and effect because we are born that way,

I agree that this is the way we learn to accept the teachings of institutional educational systems such as schools, colleges and universities. I for one have spent years trying to get beyond such limited thinking and methods. I do not think of the universe in those terms at all.

Both of these concepts don't have to be some sort of "ultimate choices", they can rather be humanistic creations, created by our simple minds.
And that's part of my point, we just don't know.
The logic of time and space may not be logical outside the universe, or in another universe.

First, I am not talking, in my response to your post, about the universe. I'm talking about the illogic of anything being infinitely reducible or regress-able. Ultimately we come to the limit where nothing is left but those two choices and they cannot be reduced or regressed any further.

Second if the universe is defined as all that is, all that exists then there is and cannot be any "outside" of the universe. If there are such things as multi-universes then they are part of, subset or sub-universe of the Universe.

The logic that 1+1 = 2 may not be true there.

Then we are not talking about this universe because this universe is invariably logical and able to be modeled to extreme accuracy by mathematics. This is one thing that science has been very successful in showing. If logic does not apply then it is unknowable and not understandable. We could not talk or write about or even think about it.

I'm not saying all philosophical discussion is useless, I'm saying when we get to the point where we no longer have any water to hold, that it becomes useless.

I disagree. When we have "water to hold" it is still science. When there is no water to hold it become philosophy. When holding water is not this issue but is beyond holding or water then it is metaphysical philosophy.
Guess what sub forum you in now

It's fine to say "hey there may be some eternal substance that created the universe,

You missed the point big time here. No wonder you object. No one is saying that esse created the universe. We're saying that esse IS the universe

but bear in mind, we can never prove it nor can we observe it, but it's just an idea."
Instead of giving it names and starting to theorize over things we have no idea about, that's what I object to.

It has been observe and experienced.

Ideas is what science and especially philosophy is all about.

If we don't have an idea and a name for it we can't discuss it.

As Les pointed out this is mainly an exercise in reasoning.

Object all you want. We all do. That's one of the things that is so fun about the philosophy sub-forum.

(Les, thank you. With this thread and you explanations of the concept and reasoning I have finally been able to dig it all out and get it verbalized in my mind. Esse is a substance that my mind can handle rather the some nebulous spirit, ectoplasm or aether. Right or wrong at least I have something that my mind can grasp and wrestle with.)

 

[roamer]

I'm sorry if my post is a tangent from the current topic but I found it very instructive to see Royce just write out his thought process on thinking about esse. So I'm going to do the same, and I'll try to write it out as a model. First I'll write out my operating assumptions and then I'll just describe where these assumptions lead me.

1. Esse is the ground of existence, there is nothing more basic than esse, therefore it is homogenous it is all the same.
2.Esse was not created and can't be destroyed, therefore there is no time in esse.
3.Esse is also not bound by dimensions since this would introduce something that is not esse, but since all is esse this is not possible.
4.I'll take Les's cue and assume that one off esses properties is that it is vibrant, but becuase of assumption one, all esse must vibrate the sme.

The last assumption is usually where I start thinking about esse. Since esse is vibratory in nature I try to compare it to something else that vibrates. So I imagine a string that is stretched tight and pulled, but because of assumption 1. there can be no string, so the only similarity of this analogy is that the string is vibratory in nature. So I am hung up here in imaging that there is something that vibrates but has nothing beneath it but this is what my assumptions lead me to conclude.
I really can't say I can imagine this,I mean from one perspective I know EVERYTHING does vibrate, but I've always imagined that there was a "something" that was vibrating.
Anyways if I continue with this model I try to imagine how these properties could create all that I see and experience. Les pointed out that when compressed esse would want to expand. I guess when I look at other things that vibrate when they are compressed they just vibrate faster. If I take a basketball and drop it from my hand and then push my my hand down while the ball bounces off of it, the vibration only gets faster and faster. Esse can not vibrate faster because of assumption 1. So what happens when esse is compressed, more importantly how the heck did esse every even get compressed in the first place?? I really have no clue how esse could get compressed by iteself unless I added one more assumption that said something like "esse is always undergoing expansion and compression dynamics" So if i said that, then I could at least think a little bit more about what happens under compression. I guess since esse MUST always vibrate at the same rate when it is compressed all I can intuitively say is that it would certainly resist the compression (want to expand). But the more I think about it the less I understand compression and expansion in this model. Everything I know that is compressed is requires a change in volume or change in the amount of space it takes up, there is no space in esse it is limitless. Anyways I would really love to hear some comments on how else to think about esse.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The interdependence of all states or things renders the notion of sequence and heirarchy as illusionary and relative to the observer.

I have heard this idea several times before and I just don’t get it. Why is it necessary to claim sequences (I assume we are talking about cause and effect) are irrelevant simply because of what we find at the quantum level? If a photo of the sun is composed of 500,000 dots, does it make sense for two people to argue whether the picture is a photo of the sun or 500,000 dots? It is both. Similarly, there are quantum operations that defy classical mechanics, yet classical mechanics hold perfectly true at the macro level.

If that weren’t so, then why would any calculations take place anywere, including in science? Prior to most practical projects calculations are performed and trusted because of how consistently reality has behaved in the past. I rely on sequences every second of my waking moment, and I haven’t had a problem yet. I use the sequence of a certain grind for my espresso, pressed with 30 lbs. of pressure, a 20 second shot, at a specific temperature. Alter one of the factors and the espresso turns out weak or bitter. I flip the light switch and the light comes on, the light doesn’t come on, and then I flip the light switch.

Believing in the importance of (the illusion of) sequence and that of separation and heirarchy is like believing the sun goes around the Earth because it appears to do so. I believe humans have a duty and a right to study the nature of existence unhampered by illusion.

The illusion is to believe there is only separation; but I say, it is unrealistic to say there is only oneness too. There are clear distinctions between things depending on what level you observe them. All communication has to be stopped if we blur distinctions so much that nothing can be identified.

On the subject of "twoness": Two is made up of units of one. In order to have two, we need one and one. This creates a condition of "Threeness" and here's why:
In order to have two, you need one. One does not cease to exist when it is in a unit of two. Therefore a state of Threeness is created by the move to create twoness and this renders twoness non-existent.

I guess we’ll have to disagree about the meaning of this.

I assume you are interpreting the Tao Te Ching verse, “Out of Tao, One is born; out One, Two; out of Two, Three; out of Three, the created universe.” Relying on traditional Chinese philosophy, the Tao is all, and oneness is a feature of that. Two is the term for polarity and the basis of yin-yang philosophy in China.

In Chinese philosophy the “three” is oneness and polarity (twoness) working together to create this universe. So first there is the oneness of the Tao, some portion of it polarizes, and then out of that first big polarity emerges the universe. The idea is that all polarities in the universe derive from a most basic and vast polarity our universe is within.

The “move to create twoness” doesn’t render twoness nonexistent. If you remove polarity from a situation, you will find the oneness of neutrality returns, so twoness is simply a “condition” of oneness. There is no contradiction, there is no duality. Oneness describes the unity of things, twoness describes a potential “form’ oneness can take (polarity). Just because water takes the “form” of ice doesn’t mean it has stopped being water.

You can’t remove polarities from the universe and still have a universe (atoms, for instance are polar, so matter would become neutral oneness if polarity were removed). So a hierarchy and sequence actually is indicated. The hierarchical sequence is oneness first, twoness second, and then all the forms of the universe which depend on oneness and polarity/vibration to exist in form. It isn’t form or polarity/vibration or oneness . . . it is form and polarity/vibratioin and oneness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm sorry if my post is a tangent from the current topic but I found it very instructive to see Royce just write out his thought process on thinking about esse. So I'm going to do the same, and I'll try to write it out as a model. First I'll write out my operating assumptions and then I'll just describe where these assumptions lead me.
1. Esse is the ground of existence, there is nothing more basic than esse, therefore it is homogenous it is all the same.
2.Esse was not created and can't be destroyed, therefore there is no time in esse.
3.Esse is also not bound by dimensions since this would introduce something that is not esse, but since all is esse this is not possible.
4.I'll take Les's cue and assume that one off esses properties is that it is vibrant, but becuase of assumption one, all esse must vibrate the sme.
The last assumption is usually where I start thinking about esse. Since esse is vibratory in nature I try to compare it to something else that vibrates. So I imagine a string that is stretched tight and pulled, but because of assumption 1. there can be no string, so the only similarity of this analogy is that the string is vibratory in nature. So I am hung up here in imaging that there is something that vibrates but has nothing beneath it but this is what my assumptions lead me to conclude.
I really can't say I can imagine this,I mean from one perspective I know EVERYTHING does vibrate, but I've always imagined that there was a "something" that was vibrating.
Anyways if I continue with this model I try to imagine how these properties could create all that I see and experience. Les pointed out that when compressed esse would want to expand. I guess when I look at other things that vibrate when they are compressed they just vibrate faster. If I take a basketball and drop it from my hand and then push my my hand down while the ball bounces off of it, the vibration only gets faster and faster. Esse can not vibrate faster because of assumption 1. So what happens when esse is compressed, more importantly how the heck did esse every even get compressed in the first place?? I really have no clue how esse could get compressed by iteself unless I added one more assumption that said something like "esse is always undergoing expansion and compression dynamics" So if i said that, then I could at least think a little bit more about what happens under compression. I guess since esse MUST always vibrate at the same rate when it is compressed all I can intuitively say is that it would certainly resist the compression (want to expand). But the more I think about it the less I understand compression and expansion in this model. Everything I know that is compressed is requires a change in volume or change in the amount of space it takes up, there is no space in esse it is limitless. Anyways I would really love to hear some comments on how else to think about esse.

I'm working on answering you in more depth, but I keep getting sidetracked, plus I'm busy at home. However, let me try to answer a couple of things.

First about vibrancy. If you have a bucket of water, and you set it on a running car, the water will vibrate. Vibrancy is one aspect, and the water is another. Similarly, vibrancy isn't what is most basic about esse, light is. To distinquish its homgeneous nature from particle EM I've called it "illumination" in the past.

So in this model, esse is vibrant illlumination.

Your point about esse vibrating faster is well-taken, but I'm not suggesting that it can. What I've said is that compression accentuates vibrancy to become oscilation. With a little compression vibrancy is gently exaggerated (amplified), with more compression the frequency increases, but it can never surpass the base frequency of esse's natural vibrancy. You might see vibrancy as a superfine "trill." For an example let's say esse has a million minute vibrant movements per inch of esse. If you compress it just a little, out of vibrancy 10 oscillations per inch appear. Keep compressing and it goes to 100, then 1000, and so on, but there is a natural limit to how fast it can go that's set by base vibrancy.

Your concern about a change in volume is hard to address. There is no such thing as "space" in this model. What appears as space between chunks of matter is really filled with esse. But if esse can become compressed forms, that means it must be incredibly elastic. So where a compression takes place, we'd find the area surrounding it stretched. (If you think about how gravity works, that matches well with observations.)

 

[octelcogopod]

The problem is such a substance could not be the basic building block of the universe.
If it has one property, you can cut it in half.
You say where it appear to be space there's just esse, but how does that make any sense?
Esse must have some sort of dimensions, in its own logical or the universes logical space.

 

[sameandnot]

it appears to me, if we are talking about the One, can we really say that it does anything, let alone vibrate?

here is the reason for this question:

-if there is action, at all, there must also be non-action.
-action/non-action are characteristic of the Two. (polarity; duality)

-Vibration implies tension between two polarities. no?

can the One be said to be in a state of tension?

-tension is the condition present between Two; Two is necessary for tension to be.

-The One, which we are talking about, is whole, with no counter-part.
-so, it seems absurb to think that the One is in tension with the Two, let alone with itself.

-Tension and, therefore, vibration are properties of the Two, and cannot be considered properties of the One.

Further:
-if the esse is everywhere, there is nowhere that it is not.
-if the esse is eternal, then time and space are not present in its being.
-therefore, the idea that it vibrates (in time and space... as vibration must be in time and space), appears to be, really, a false perception.

-in the Two then, time and space is a factor, but never for the One. (as it is omnipresent and eternal.
-The One cannot "go" anywhere, or "change" as these are properties that belong only to the Two.
-but, the One is not limited by the Two.
-So, there is Really only One.

is talking about space and time and change, then founded in illusion and false views?

i am trying to unfold the Two, which "me" and "you" are inherently bound in, so that "I" may know the One, which "I" am.
-it follows that "I", then, am eternal, boundless and unchanging, since what "I" essentially am is the One; we all agree that the One is. what "I" am, then, must be the One, because "I" am aware of my existence.
-therefore, what "I" really am is the One and the rest of my ideas/conceptions/beliefs must be illusion/delusion.

is this logic flawed?

 

[sameandnot]

because "I" exist and the One necessarily exists, it follows that the perceptions that I have which involve beginning and end and change, do not apply to what "I" really am.
"I" is the primal, most essential nature of being, for "I", so it seems that it must be in accord with the One, since the one is the most essential nature of being.

so "I" is omnipresent, and eternal and unchanging... essentially it is That, which is the One.

again: please note the flaws of this logical excercise. all are welcome and never turned away.

so, if we are talking about order or chaos, we are speaking entirely of the Two. Twoness, then, is the basis of order and the One is entirely transcendant of order and chaos.

order and choas are polarities and are therefore properties of the Two. they seem to go hand in hand. For "order" there is "chaos" and for "chaos" there is "order."

 

[Les Sleeth]

The problem is such a substance could not be the basic building block of the universe.
If it has one property, you can cut it in half.
You say where it appear to be space there's just esse, but how does that make any sense?
Esse must have some sort of dimensions, in its own logical or the universes logical space.

I think you have left the path of logic we've been following. What is the logic of saying you can cut a property in half? Can you halve infinity?

Why must esse have dimensions? If it is infinitely extended, then it is immeasurable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey Les,
I am curious as to how an uncreated, unlimited, unbounded plane of esse could ever become concentrated in the first place? Once esse is compressed I can begin to imagine how it could take on the properties you describe. . . . But what I still don't understand is what caused the compressive forces, or dynamics that led to one substance exhibiting multiple forms.

Yours is a good question because I can use it to demonstrate the modeling technique I’m relying on. Let me first define how that technique is used :

1. Assume something unknown is true; in this case, an uncreated ground state substance that composes and determines all existence (esse).
2. Imagine what esse must be like to produce conditions we find here in our universe.
3. To help with envisioning what esse must be like, search for traits that run throughout the universe.

What I’ve suggested is that unless there is some plane of existence that is an uncreated, uncaused substance and set of conditions, then we cannot escape the logical dilemma of infinite regress.

Three traits I’ve identified that run throughout the universe are oscillation, polarization, and compression-decompression.

To account for oscillation with esse, I’ve proposed esse is inherently vibrant, and that vibrancy is accentuated by compression to become “vibration.” What is the source of the compression?

Keep in mind there are really two major factors present in the ground state. There is the nature of esse, and then there is the ocean aspect of esse. Just like a water ocean, water has characteristics as H2O and it has characteristics because it resides as a volume of water (e.g., eddies, waves, etc.). Similarly, there is the inherent characteristics of esse, and there are esse ocean dynamics. Since compression is an elementary dynamic, and esse is essentially energetic (vibrancy), it is a simple matter to imagine that the ocean of esse is turbulent and that part of that turbulence is compression. Let’s call the point where compression occurs in the esse ocean a “position.”

See Diagram 4 (click to enlarge)

What might go on at a position under compression?

See Diagram 5

The idea is that it creates an discrete oscillating point, or position, within the whole of the esse ocean. Notice in the drawing I called the position a “balance point” because it is midway between the compression phase and decompression phase.

Simple compression might explain how oscillation comes about, but what about polarization? For that it seems that oscillation will have to endure. Assuming we have an infinite ocean of esse, and eternity, then it isn’t a stretch to imagine that at times multiple compressional forces surround a single position, which would keep the pressure on. With sufficient duration and enough pressure, might a position differentiate into stabilized modes, thus creating a self-sustaining “entity”?

See Diagram 6

Why suppose such an occurrence in the esse ocean? The ability to distinguish an entity within the oneness of the esse ocean is crucial if we are to somehow move from undifferentiated oneness to manifold reality. If that first step out of oneness is the establishment of some sort of polar entity, then we should have the means for further development.

Getting back to the modeling demonstration, the idea has been to imagine base conditions of esse and the esse ocean that lead to what we find here in the universe. Polarity and oscillation are key to the existence of the universe, so we have reasoned “backwards” from that trying to envision the primordial or “ground” state.

 

[octelcogopod]

I think you have left the path of logic we've been following. What is the logic of saying you can cut a property in half? Can you halve infinity?
Why must esse have dimensions? If it is infinitely extended, then it is immeasurable.

Yes but I already said in my earlier post we will never know if it is infinite, because the esse doesn't carry any characteristics that would indicatei t being eternal or infinite.

You are applying properties to it, like polarities and vibrations, which must have some sort of dimensions, you can't have a vibrating nothing.
The opposite of nothing is something, and immediately when you have something, it has a property, and that property must always be existential, as such an existential property means that it must have a dimension, at least a dimension of existence, which is a property in itself, if that's the only property it has, then there's no indication that it will start to vibrate.

 

[sameandnot]

The ability to distinguish an entity within the oneness of the esse ocean is crucial if we are to somehow move from undifferentiated oneness to manifold reality. If that first step out of oneness is the establishment of some sort of polar entity, then we should have the means for further development.

i don't think that we are really thinking about the nature of such an esse. the One is not such that it is Two. Unless what we mean by esse, is the sea of vibration, which is the Two. The One cannot vibrate. This is essential to understand. THe One is One and is whole and undifferentiated; this is why it is the One... because it is not divided any where. are we seeing it more clearly now?
there can be no entity within the Oneness; that makes it Two. This is a very simple logical prerequisite of the One, but is not understood, here.
When we talk about the One we are talking about an undifferentiated wholeness, with no other present.
To admit the existence of the One is to submit to its being the Only existence. Two, is naught, when One is.
This is to say that, were we to Know the One and thereby be aware of it's being, Two must necessarily be naught. do you see?
this is like saying that the Two is shadow; once one sees the light, directly, the Two (shadow) is not.
To talk about oscillation or becoming signifies that the One is not known. The One completely destroys the idea of Two; in it's very nature.

I think that the problem here, is that we are considering a linear movement of physical events, proceeding from the One; where the One is some primordial state, which then develops the Two. It seems that we are thinking of this wrong.

The One can be nothing other than the beginning, the middle and the end.

It would be just as logical to talk about the Two developing into the One.
Both ways of talking, thinking (Two from One, One from Two) would both be missing the point of what the One is. If we accept the One then we must not accept such conditions of becoming, which are inherent in the Two. as the One is neither becoming nor changing.

The Two is the One.

this means that the perception and consideration of the Two is shortsighted; limited within the realm of the Two.

As was said in a previous post, about rationality, one must "go beyond"/"transcend" reason to see what reason is and be able to reason effectively, ultimately. in the same way, it appears, one must go beyond the Two, in order to see the Two most clearly; having known what is not the Two.

I do hope that people are reading this and really thinking about it, rather than just thinking of ways to "come back" or carry on as though it was not fundamentally important information.

I am calling into question the very idea of Esse which has hitherto been present in this discussion. namely, it's vibratory nature (which immediately calls into necessary existence the ideas of dividuation, space, time, and change... all are properties that can not be of the One.

please condider this before talking about the One or the Esse again, as the discussion will need to adapt, i am certain.

i may have been somewhat over-zealous in some previous posts, but it is only because i see this quite clearly, apparently.

we must re-consider the One and the Two and how the Two stands in relation to the One.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes but I already said in my earlier post we will never know if it is infinite, because the esse doesn't carry any characteristics that would indicatei t being eternal or infinite.
You are applying properties to it, like polarities and vibrations, which must have some sort of dimensions, you can't have a vibrating nothing.
The opposite of nothing is something, and immediately when you have something, it has a property, and that property must always be existential, as such an existential property means that it must have a dimension, at least a dimension of existence, which is a property in itself, if that's the only property it has, then there's no indication that it will start to vibrate.

Now you are thinking completely outside of this reasoning exercise. Nothing you are saying shows you understand what we are doing. If that isn't so, then how can you possibly say "there's no indication that it will start to vibrate"? We have already reasoned that because everything in this universe vibrates, and polarizes, that for a monistic modeling exercise the idea is to propose some more basic condition(s) which could lead to that. So there is every indication that our theoretical esse is vibrant, and that something in the theoretical esse ocean causes it to vibrate.

If you want to call a property a "dimension," fine, but that's not how it's normally used. I've clearly stated esse must have properties. It is sometlhing, it is uncreated stuff that can become all that we find here in this universe. You might have missed where in my explanation to Roamer that I said vibrancy is a secondary trait, that esse's most basic nature is that of homogeneous "illumination." I arrived at that from evidence and logic. Evidence-wise, that is a common report of the most successful meditators (that they join with an ocean of light). Logic-wise, as the universe radiates away its mass, light is what departs matter.

You know, if you don't like thinking about how it might be possible for a universe to narturally arise from esse, then you don't have to participate. I'm inviting people who to contribute who find the idea interesting.

 

[Les Sleeth]

i don't think that we are really thinking about the nature of such an esse. the One is not such that it is Two. Unless what we mean by esse, is the sea of vibration, which is the Two. The One cannot vibrate. This is essential to understand. THe One is One and is whole and undifferentiated; this is why it is the One... because it is not divided any where. are we seeing it more clearly now?

Is it more clear now? Yes, it’s clear you aren’t following the discussion and think you can pontificate on a subject which nobody really knows anything about. This is not the place for you to lay your realizations on us. You might be the seer you think you are, but it isn’t relevant to this discussion.

In THIS discussion, the idea is to assume there is one substance that makes up everything, and then use universal conditions we find in creation to imagine what that one stuff is like. I am not saying the one stuff actually exists, I am not expecting anyone to believe anything. This is just a “what if” and then an application of logic.

In the context of the theme of this thread, logic-wise your statements don’t make the slightest sense. For example, if the one cannot vibrate, then what is all the vibration doing here in creation? The idea of the one is that is encompasses all, it is the one reality, the one basis of all existence . . . So whatever forms we see must be a form of the one.

If vibration isn’t provided by the one, then there is no such thing as the one. In that case, what you are calling “one” is really just one of many different things that exist. But if it is THE one, then all that we see are manifestations of that one.

As I said to octelcogopod, this thread is just for people who are interested in participating in the monistic reasoning exercise. If you aren’t interested, then there are other venues, including starting your own threads, where you can do your own thing.

 

[sameandnot]

upon contemplation, it appears that this question is already closed. if we can stop deluding the process with false views about the One.

we say that the esse is the eternal flux of the Two, polarity/duality; that this cycle and play of the poles/duality never began and shall never end; beginningless/endless contraction and expansion, vibration, and cycle of dualities.

in duality is included the duality of matter/energy (which are neither created nor destroyed, but transmuted between the two) and we have our "stuff." oscillation from pure energy to matter is a natural course of the properties of the Two/"esse", so it is not illogical to consider energy to be the essential "stuff", though it might be perceived by some to be inconsistent; once energy is transmuted into matter, by reslut of the properties of oscillation that matter is subject to polarity and from there we can see an "obective" universe arising from even the smallest, most seemingly insignificant "specks" of matter.

we know the Two to be fundamentally and endlessly united as One; the Two are/is One, in essence.

The One, then, is the total unity of the Two.

it is easy to see how the play of duality/the poles/the complementary parts constitute the manifold forms of Reality, in time, and also how they are united, in the totality of time (and space), eternity, as One.

we do not have to think, it appears, about how the Two was derived from the One, but only how the Two is One.

The perception of the Two, then, is the crude perception of what is only One; a perception which is limited from its "being within."

the initial post points to this clearly and directly; particularly by way of the yin-yang image.

a "beginning" and "end," then, are the perceptions one has from "being within" a single framework of expansion and contraction. (say, a universe is said to have a beginning and end, because we are "within" it, but we would know, via the necessary eternality of the Two, it's beginning and end to be one of an eternal process of fluctuations between expansion and contraction)

So, then, the One is the Knowing of the Reality of what the Two is; the endlessly united/connected Nature of the Two; that the Two is only One, essentially.

so, it seems, we need only discuss how the Two has manifest such manifold forms, if we find it necessary to do so. It might, simply, be more fruitful to understand how the Two is One.

it appears to be a mis-guided search, if we are trying to determine how the One became Two, but I know that you want to know the "essential stuff" of creation, so you probably want to see what came before polarity; from whence polarity issued. you may find it insatisfactory to think that the essentail stuff is really of a dual nature, although it explains the fundamental "structuring" quality of creation.

in this way, we know the trinity of "creator, creation, creating" as being One and the same, along with the duality of the "opposites"/complements as One, as well. That the identification of the trinity, and duality as being Absolute Truths, are really "half-truths", if you will, in light of the essential unity that is Reality.

so, if the issue is "how the One became Two", we might be looking at it wrong, in light of the fact that the Two is, really, only One.

The oscillation of the Two is eternal in and as the One.

 

[octelcogopod]

Now you are thinking completely outside of this reasoning exercise. Nothing you are saying shows you understand what we are doing. If that isn't so, then how can you possibly say "there's no indication that it will start to vibrate"? We have already reasoned that because everything in this universe vibrates, and polarizes, that for a monistic modeling exercise the idea is to propose some more basic condition(s) which could lead to that. So there is every indication that our theoretical esse is vibrant, and that something in the theoretical esse ocean causes it to vibrate.
If you want to call a property a "dimension," fine, but that's not how it's normally used. I've clearly stated esse must have properties. It is sometlhing, it is uncreated stuff that can become all that we find here in this universe. You might have missed where in my explanation to Roamer that I said vibrancy is a secondary trait, that esse's most basic nature is that of homogeneous "illumination." I arrived at that from evidence and logic. Evidence-wise, that is a common report of the most successful meditators (that they join with an ocean of light). Logic-wise, as the universe radiates away its mass, light is what departs matter.
You know, if you don't like thinking about how it might be possible for a universe to narturally arise from esse, then you don't have to participate. I'm inviting people who to contribute who find the idea interesting.

If I didn't find it interesting I wouldn't have participated.
I'm just trying to figure out if my questions fit in your theory.
It seems we have completely different ideas on how the universe works, so I don't think we will ever come to an understanding.

 

[quantumcarl]

You missed the point big time here. No wonder you object. No one is saying that esse created the universe. We're saying that esse IS the universe

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".

However, in "twoness" it is required that esse be observed to exist.

ie: observer + observed = "twoness"
(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)

Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.

One is comprised of many parts

eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...

How can we call this oneness?