www.panentheism.com

	Tractate 1 : The Error of Zeno (continued) Zeno: The appearance of the ‘real’ and the ‘real illusion’: Pre-Zeno: What is: What is: But why the ‘dotted’ line? The line is dotted to represent the lack of understanding regarding ‘a’ universe, ‘a’ system, existence being existence whatever that means in the metaphysical sense. The picture will change as the chapters evolve and will be summarized in Chapter 16: Summation: A New Slant on the Old. Zeno begins the process of expanding upon our perceptual understanding of ‘what is’ through the identification of paradoxes, which arise when we maintain the perception of ‘a’ single location of existence: Zeno’s perception of ‘what is’: What is: Physical Distance - Multiplicity & Abstract Distance - 'seamlessness' Zeno expands upon the perception of existence: Existence now becomes a new but elusive concept of the physical – ‘multiplicity’ ‘containing’ abstraction – ‘seamlessness’ What is: Physical Distance - 'multiplicity' & Abstract Distance - 'seamlessness' As such, the ‘size’ of the universe grows to accommodate, make room for the abstract. The concept of ‘growth’ at this stage of understanding was not growth in actuality, for ‘what is’ is. Rather ‘growth’ was growth in ‘our’ perception of 'what is’. Zeno’s concept of the abstract ‘seamlessness’ inadvertently begins an emergence of a perceptual concept of location (see previous diagram). Zeno’s work causes us to contemplate questions regarding ourselves and just what it is we are and why it is we exist. The next sequence of drawings regarding the existence of abstraction, ‘seamlessness’, verses the existence of the concrete, the physical, ‘multiplicity’ is not as simple as first glance may imply. Depending upon where one stands as one addresses the issue, the drawing can reverse itself and become perceptually something altogether different. Therefore, it is the ‘real’ and the ‘real illusion’, which become the ‘real illusion’ and the ‘real’ as one moves from one position to another. Rapid motion often causes us to become disoriented and confused. So it is we become perplexed with the introduction of independent locations for ‘seamlessness’ and ‘multiplicity’ or what might better be called the abstract and the physical. Now what does all this flip-flopping of position have to do with Zeno and his famous paradoxes? What does this have to do with Zeno’s inference regarding an existence of ‘multiplicity’ and ‘seamlessness’? Zeno implies two existences, the abstract (‘seamlessness’) and the physical (‘multiplicity’). But Zeno is unable to visualize such a concept. Part of Zeno’s problem regarding the concept of two locations of existence lies in the fact that zero, infinity, nothingness, relative time, Cartesian systems, non-Cartesian systems, … had not yet evolved. As such, Zeno was lacking many of the tools modern metaphysicians have at their disposal. This being the case, Zeno was perplexed by his thoughts and as such, Zeno was unable to perceive of the possibility vis-à-vis the process of establishing two separate locations, one for the abstract and one for the physical, to then introducing the concept of oscillating what is the ‘real’ with what is the ‘real illusion’ was next to impossible. In short, Zeno was unable to perceptualize potential reversal roles for ‘locations’ of the abstract and the physical. A ‘New Metaphysical Perception’ regarding Zeno’s paradox: In the case of a new metaphysical perspective, the process of reversing perceptions involves two systems of reality, one within the other. Both systems are ‘real’. Both systems are ‘real illusions’; neither system corresponds directly to being ‘real’ while the other is ‘real’, nor a ‘real illusion’ while the other is a ‘real illusion’. Rather one is ‘real’ when the other is a ‘real illusion’ and becomes a ‘real illusion’ when the other is ‘real’. Both have a function. The first grows through the action of the second. The second ‘is’ because of the action of the first. The innermost system involves a Kantian system, a Cartesian system, a physical system based upon ‘a' foundation. In this case, 'the' foundation’s 'first truth' is: consciousness exists. This Kantian system finds itself immersed within the larger system, the Hegelian system, a non-Cartesian system - a foundationless system of abstraction. In short, both Kant and Hegel were correct: there is such a thing as ‘a’ system. On the other hand both Kant and Hegel were incorrect. The system is not a singular system but a complex system composed of two systems in one: a Cartesian system fueling a non-Cartesian system and a non-Cartesian system initiating a Cartesian system in order to fuel its own non-Cartesian self. In short the existence of a perpetual motion machine of abstraction vs. the theoretically impossible existence of a physical perpetual motion machine. Now we all know perpetual motion machines do not, cannot, exist, but that understanding applies only to the laws of thermodynamics, laws found ‘within’ the physical, laws found ‘within’ the universe, laws found ‘within’ a Cartesian System. The system being proposed here is not a Cartesian system but rather a non-Cartesian System fueled by a Cartesian System. But more of this in future chapters. Our function regarding Zeno is to begin our understanding regarding a new perception, which Zeno inadvertently and unknowingly initiated. Reversing perceptions – counter view It is possible, metaphysically, to reverse the perceptual ‘locations’ of the physical and the abstract. Zeno was only able to perceive of the abstract being ‘located’ ‘within’ the physical for the physical was what was. However, it is possible today to understand the concept of the physical being ‘located’ ‘within’ the abstract. This possibility has emerged as a possibility because we now understand the universe may be limited. The limits may exist in terms of time. They may exist in terms of implosion, infinite expansion, vacuum collapse, ad infinitem. Regardless of the type of speculation regarding the demise of the universe the result is the same, the concept of the universe being limited exists. The very existence of the potential demise of the universe allows us to view the previous diagram from a different perspective, from the perspective of the physical universe being ‘inside’ the abstract. When viewed as such, one obtains an entirely different sequence of drawings from what Zeno had at his disposal. (Note the reversal of the abstract – the square and the physical – the circle.) The appearance of the ‘real’ and the ‘real illusion’ now becomes: Once again, we see the ‘real’ and the ‘real illusion’ become the ‘real illusion’ and the ‘real’ as one moves from one position to another. What is different regarding this sequence of drawing as opposed to the previous sequence of drawings? In this sequence of drawings, the abstract ‘contains’ the physical. Multiplicity finds itself to be ‘within’, a part of seamlessness ‘as opposed to’ ‘seamlessness’ being ‘within’, a part of, multiplicity. This brings us back to the twentieth century concept regarding ‘innate characteristics of…’ Is multiplicity, the physical, the concrete, a part … an innate characteristic of the abstract – seamlessness or is the abstract, seamlessness, an innate characteristic of the concrete, the physical, multiplicity. When viewed from ‘within’ the physical, it would appear the abstract is an innate characteristic of the physical. When viewed from ‘within’ the abstract, it would appear the physical is an innate characteristic of the abstract. In essence, the understanding of what is ‘real’ was the concept being put before us, before humanity, by Zeno. In essence, the answer to ‘What is real?’ provides the answer to: ‘The scholarly confusion regarding Zeon’s Paradoxes: Scholars disagree about what Zeno himself took his paradoxes to show. There is no evidence that he offered any absolutions" to them. One view is that they were part of a program to establish that multiplicity is an illusion, and that reality is a seamless whole. The argument could be reconstructed like this: if you allow that reality can be successively divided into parts, you find yourself with these insupportable paradoxes; so you must I think of Reality as a single indivisible One. - (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Robert Audi, Cambridge University Press, 1995)’ What does this have to do with Zeno’s inference of an existence of ‘multiplicity’ and an existence of ‘seamlessness’? The concept of location, the concept of ‘one’ located ‘within’ ‘the other’ expands upon Zeno’s perception of ‘one’ location of existence. Zeno, however, could not speculate regarding two ‘realities’, upon two realities dependent upon each other for existence itself. As such, the most Zeno could do was expand upon what was: What Was: …and turn it into what is (Zeno’s point in history) What is: Physical Distance - Multiplicity & Abstract Distance - 'seamlessness' … which in turn moves to becoming (over the next twenty-five hundred years): a new perception 2000 AD Physical Distance - 'multiplicity' & Abstract Distance - 'seamlessness' Or: Physical Distance - 'multiplicity' & Abstract Distance - 'seamlessness' …depending upon where one stands as one addresses the issue. The movement from Zeno’s dotted boundaries to present day solid lines is nothing less than an understanding regarding the rational possibility of the two existences co-existing. The process of moving from one location of existence to another, the seeming process of reversion, is in essence not reversion but inversion. All this theory seems so inconsequential when one views a small child starving in Uganda, but is it? The Point - Individuality As we will see throughout this work, it is the very concept of points in history, the small child starving in Uganda, which is being accentuated in this discussion. It is distinct points, the uniqueness of ‘a’ point itself, which represents transformational events in the life of ‘a’ unique entity that will stand out in this work. However, more of this in future chapters. Once again, what of Zeno? Zeno had something to tell us, which even he did not understand. What Zeno had to tell us, without understanding how to verbalize the concept, picture the concept, even perceive the concept, dealt with the very concept of a point. The point is a particular point, be it a geometric point, a point of history, a point of action, a point of abstraction, a point of individuality, or for that matter any point of awareness of its own awareness be it terrestrial or extraterrestrial. To better understand the lesson Zeno initiated, we need to understand a few things about points of space and points of abstraction… As such, lets look at the concept of ‘a’ geometric point and then look at the concept of ‘an’ individual. We will then expand our view to include the concept of individual points of abstraction as it relates to the concept of individual points of space. This understanding is what will reveal some very interesting points indeed. Geometry Metaphysics: ‘a’ Virgin Point of Geometry ‘a’ Virgin Consciousness of Metaphysics:: Beginning at the beginning: definitions - Geometry: Beginning at the beginning: perceptions - Metaphysics: The first step: a systematic examination of the first definition put forward by Euclid begins with the word 'a'. This is a critical step. It implies existence. It implies singularity. Mathematics could not move forward unless it was willing to accept this most Husserlian of all steps. The process of beginning not from the 'whole' and moving inward to the least of all elements but rather beginning with the least of all elements and moving outward to describe the 'whole' was crucial to Mathematics. Mathematics made tremendous strides by not begging the question: 'Why begin with the least and move outward to the 'totality' of space.’ By moving from the least outward, Mathematics left the ‘size’ of ‘what is’ open and as such we, humanity, were able to expand upon the outer limits we perceived to exist. Metaphysics may find it to can make tremendous strides if it would be willing to humble itself and follow the lead of Mathematics, if it would be willing to not ‘beg the question’ of why start with the least as opposed to the 'whole'. If the process of starting with the least of the elements and moving outward to the 'whole' is successful, then, just as in geometry, once we get to the 'whole' we should be able to move in either of two directions. If successful, we should be able to continue to expand upon our perception of what is or we should be able to reverse the process and reduce everything down to the most fundamental element. However, some philosophers are not inclined to forgo the debate regarding, ‘Why start with the least and move outward’. Lets begin with the ‘least’ and move ‘outward’ despite their objections. Lets do so assuming this process will do for Metaphysicians what this process did for Mathematicians and Scientists. Lets assume this process will provide for an unlimited growth of ‘what is’ as opposed to confining ‘what is’ to ‘what it is’ and then moving inward to the least. As such, we will begin with the concept of the ‘least’ and move outward to the 'totality' of knowing, to the totality of knowledge. Once having reached the perceived end, we will judge our success through two means: First: ‘looking’ ‘outward’: Does the result of our building perception ‘outward’ from the least element of ‘what is’ lead us to the furthest boundaries of our ability to speculate. Does our building upon our least element of perception leads us to ‘reality’ as we know it just as moving from ‘a’ point outward leads us to the concept of three dimensional space as we know it. Does the process of building upon the least of ‘what is’, leave our perception of ‘what is out there’ open, able to be expanded even further, leave our perceptions of ‘what else there is’ beckoning to our natural instinct of curiosity. Once having reached the outer boundaries of our perceptual abilities do we find ourselves wrapped in a state of excitable agitation regarding what else there is to discover ‘beyond’ what we ‘know’. Second: ‘looking’ ‘inward’: Having reached the furthest limits of our perceptual ability for any particular point in time can we logically reduce our most expansive perception of ‘what is’ back once again to the least of the elements. Using Husserl’s process of reduction, do we find ourselves once again examining the primal element with which we started? Geometry: ‘a’ point Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness Geometry's second critical step is to determine 'a' what. Euclid did not decide to start with a 'point' but rather Euclid decided to start with a 'location', the smallest location of which he could conceive. He named this location 'a' 'point'. For metaphysics to follow suit, it must decide to start with 'a' something. Now metaphysics could begin with 'a' 'first cause' but this would not be following in the steps of Euclid. For Euclid to forge such a path, he would have had to start with the concept of 'a' 'space'. In other words Euclid would have had to start with the 'largest' rather than the 'least' element. So what is it with which metaphysics must begin. Since metaphysics is the study of knowledge and since the process of knowledge is ‘knowing’ then it would appear metaphysics would have to begin with awareness of knowledge. In other words, it would appear Metaphysics would need to begin with the least element of awareness or 'a' 'consciousness'. Geometry: ‘a’ point is ... Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness is. Geometry acknowledges the concept of existence How can Metaphysics begin by doing anything less than the same? Geometry: ‘a’ point is that ... Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness is that. Geometry begins to define Metaphysics following suit Geometry: ‘a’ point is that which Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness is that which Geometry does not just define but defines specifically. Metaphysics: following suit Geometry: ‘a’ point is that which has … Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness is that which has… Geometry moves from recognizing we ‘can’ ‘define specifically’ into accepting its ability to do so. Not only does geometry recognize its ability to do so but Geometry proceeds to do so with no thought of it being arrogant in doing so. Geometry proceeds to do so with no apology. Geometry proceeds to define its field of study without looking back to see who is lying in wait ready to spring upon each and every word it utters. Metaphysics: following suit Geometry: ‘a’ point is that which has no ... Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness is that which has no. An interesting step for geometry, for Euclid at this stage decides to define the point through a 'lack of’ rather than define the point in a substantive form. Euclid recognized one cannot get to the 'least' through a process of acknowledging the least having substance. He understood 'having substance' implied an existence capable of being divided again and again and again and.... Metaphysics: follows suit Geometry: ‘a’ point is that which has no part. Metaphysics: ‘a’ consciousness is that which has no knowledge. Metaphysics takes its second diversion from geometry. The first diversion: The first diversion deals with what it is which distinguishes the two, geometry and metaphysics. Geometry deals with existence of location and metaphysics deals with existence of awareness. This is not to say metaphysics has no concern regarding location for, as we shall see, location plays a vital part in the more advanced stages of metaphysics. But for know, in terms of the most primary of primary steps regarding metaphysics, we have little choice but to begin at the beginning, to begin with the 'least element' of metaphysics and that is 'a', 'the' concept of 'a' consciousness void of location. The second diversion: The second diversion describes the ‘substance’ with which each deals. Geometry deals with space and metaphysics deals with awareness. Geometry deals with the 'least element' of location, a location so small it has no size. Metaphysics deals with the ‘least element’ of awareness, awareness so small it has no awareness. Now just what is the defining characteristic of this awareness, this consciousness? It is the same as the defining characteristic of 'a' point. Just as ‘a’ point has no part, has a lack of physical location, 'a' consciousness has no knowledge, has a lack of abstraction. In short, 'a' consciousness is so small it has no consciousness, no awareness, no experience, no knowing, and no knowledge. We will refer to such a consciousness as 'a’ 'virgin consciousness' The question becomes: Why should Metaphysics and Geometry take any diversions from each other at all? Geometry is geometry and metaphysics is metaphysics. If metaphysics took no diversion at all from geometry, it would be geometry not metaphysics. Understanding Geometry in order to deal with the perception of location, space, multiplicity takes an understanding regarding the ‘least’ of space, ‘where’ no location, begins. Understanding Metaphysics in order to deal with the perception of awareness, knowing, seamlessness takes an understanding regarding the ‘least’ of knowledge, ‘where’ no knowing, begins. The concept of a quantity of knowledge, a ‘beginning’ for knowledge, and the concept of a location, a ‘place’ for knowledge, assists us in understanding a new perception regarding what is ‘real’ and what is ‘kind of real’.