Tractate 1 : The Error of Zeno (continued)

The ‘real’ and the ‘real illusion’ illustrated
Inverted views: Both real, one the inversion of the other

Diagram #1:
The elements:

1. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
2. The perceived ‘real’ illusion – abstraction



We know abstractions exist in physical reality. Few of us can deny non-physical concepts such as love, hate, jealousy, happiness, curiosity, hope, …These concepts do not seem to be composed of any form of matter or energy. They appear to be forms of abstraction.

Zeno recognized this concept and in fact verbalized it mathematically with his various paradoxes of space, time, and distance. Space, time, and distance also appear to be as much abstractions as hope, joy, love, and hate.

Zeno focused upon the concept of distance for distance was an abstraction scholars of his time could most readily manipulate mathematically. Zeno then lead scholars into a debate regarding the abstractual world, illusional concepts of seamless distance vs. the physical world’s, realities, concepts of multiplicity of distance. As we know, illusional seamless distance is just that: illusional. The concept of a seamless distance does not appear to exist in the physical world.

We might better use the term for ‘being illusionary but ‘kind of’ real’ as being a ‘real illusion’ of existence.

This is similar to what we, from the point of view of being ‘within’ the concrete, functioning ‘within’ the physical, perceive to be.

If we expanded upon the view of Diagram #1, we would obtain the negative of the print or the inversion of Zeno’s perception of the world as we shrink the size of the abstract found ‘within’ the physical.

Diagram #2:
The elements:

1. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
2. The perceived ‘real’ illusion - abstraction



Continuing to shrink the abstraction within the physical we get:

Diagram #2a:
The elements:

3. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
4. The perceived ‘real’ illusion - abstraction


And then, if we add multiplicity to abstraction found ‘within the physical we get:

Diagram #2b:
The elements:

5. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
6. The perceived ‘real’ illusion - abstraction



How is it we are able to ‘arbitrarily enclose the physical with abstraction? How are we logically able to draw such a perception? If the physical should cease to exist, it would appear the only item left would be the abstract:

Diagram #3 with the physical removed:
The elements:

1. The 'real' - erased
2. The 'real' illusion


Now it appears the abstract is all that is left. But if there is no physical, only consciousness does the ‘real illusion’, does abstraction really exist and even if it did would it matter? Of course it would matter for awareness is all that appears to matter in the final analysis. Awareness is the only logical existence we can tie to timelessness. Awareness is the only existence we can rationally perceive as having significance.

It is abstraction, knowledge, knowing, awareness of… that would remain should we remove the physical, should the physical be removed. As such, it is the physical that would appear to be immersed ‘within’ the abstract even if the physical in actuality is not there, is nowhere, for there is nowhere else to ‘put’ the ‘real’, the physical but ‘within’ the abstract.

But couldn’t we follow this same process and end up with the physical and thus find ourselves with the same logic, find ourselves confronting the concept of the only place to ‘put’ the abstract is ‘within’ the physical? The way to find out is to try it.

To understand what happens in such a scenario we must begin once again with diagram #1.

Diagram #1:
The elements:

3. The perceived 'real' - the physical
4. The perceived 'real' illusion - abstraction



This time we will place the physical ‘within’ a larger view of the physical and rather than obtain diagram #2 we find we have a different diagram which we shall label diagram #3.

Diagram #3:
The elements:

7. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
8. The perceived ‘real’ illusion - abstraction



Continuing to shrink the abstraction within the physical we get:

Diagram #3a:
The elements:

9. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
10. The perceived ‘real’ illusion - abstraction



And then, if we add multiplicity to abstraction found ‘within the physical we get:

Diagram #3b:
The elements:

11. The perceived ‘real’ – the physical
12. The perceived ‘real’ illusion - abstraction



How is it we are able to ‘arbitrarily enclose the physical with more of the physical? How are we logically able to draw such a perception? One might better ask the experts. One might want to ask the astrophysicists who argue for the ‘Big Bang Theory’. One might inquire of the cosmologists supporting the theory of various vacuum level potentialities. One might even approach the experts in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, or string theory. If one were to ask the metaphysician, which after all is a logical starting point since this discussion is being conducted by a metaphysician, one would receive the answer: we can increase the perceived ‘size’ by simply expanding our perception of the physical.

What happens, now, if the physical remains and the abstract is removed which is the opposite of our previous scenario? If the abstract should cease to exist, it would appear the only item left would be the physical.

Diagram #3c with the abstract removed:
The elements:

3. The ‘real’
4. The ‘real’ illusion – erased



Now it appears the physical is all that is left. But if there is no awareness, no consciousness, does the ‘real’ really exist and even if it did would it matter? Regarding the existence of the physical void awareness, there is no rational argument we can present demonstrating an existence of the concept we refer to as ‘significance of’.

This inverted view of what is ‘real’ and what is a ‘real illusion’, diagram #2, cannot be shown to be ‘what is ‘for in fact it ‘isn’t’ anymore than diagram #1 ‘is’.

During Zeno’s time, diagram #1 was ‘real’ only from the point of view of the concrete, the physical, when one was ‘inside’ the physical ‘looking’ ‘into’ the abstract. With the advent of today’s ability to remove one’s perception ‘outside’ of the ‘real’ we are able to move into a perception better illustrated by diagram #2.

The perception of diagram #2 is real from the point of perspective of being inside the inner form of abstraction looking ‘out’ into the physical as well as from the point of perspective of being inside the outer form of abstraction looking ‘into’ the physical. In addition, the perception created by diagram #2 is logical from the point of perception of being inside the physical looking either ‘inward’ into abstraction or looking ‘outward’ into abstraction. In short, regardless of where one stands within the system of diagram #2, the view is rational. This fact reinforces the concept of Diagram #2 being a logical perspective of totality. (The concept of standing in the ‘outer’ abstraction and looking ‘outward’ into (?) will be addressed in Chapter 18: Theoretical Metaphysics.)

Zeno’s perception, Diagram #1, on the other hand has many problems regarding rational thinking. If one is standing within the physical and the abstract is erased, what of significance remains? It is rational to add an increment of awareness, abstraction, into the physical of diagram #2 but is it rational to add an increment of the physical into an abstraction of diagram #1? Etc.

Now what does all this have to do with Zeno and the paradox of motion? It leads to understanding Zeno’s paradox as not being what it is perceived to be, namely a paradox.

To resolve Zeno’s paradox we need a metaphysical perception, which would acknowledge and maintain the legitimacy regarding Zeno’s perception of the multiplicity of distance existing simultaneously with the seamlessness of distance. Such a metaphysical perception would establish why Zeno’s paradoxes are not paradoxes but rather only perceived paradoxes. In essence, such a perception may well assist both religion and science in better understanding what we call ‘reality’. In fact, a new perspective may well be a necessity for our travels within the new frontiers of space and what better means of establishing a new perspective than metaphysics itself.

Working backward to Zeno:
In order to better understand Zeno, we must understand Zeno’s perspective of what was.
Let’s begin with Diagram #1:

Diagram #1:
The elements:

1. The ‘real’
2. The ‘real’ illusion



To get to Zeno’s perception we will begin by extracting the outer circle composed of a ‘real illusion’ and discarding it.

Diagram #1a:
The elements:

1. The ‘real’
2. The ‘real’ illusion



This process gives us a much better understanding of where it was Zeno stood while perceiving ‘things’. The next step is to shrink the size of the ‘real illusion’ and duplicate the locations of the ‘real illusion’ many times over.

Diagram #3:
The elements:

3. The ‘real’
4. The ‘real’ illusion



The multiple circles of ‘real illusions’ represents illusions maintained, formed by multiple locations of individuality found within reality, found within a reality we call the ‘real’ world.

This Diagram comes closer to Zeno’s perception than ‘a’ single location, a single perception of one and only one ‘real illusion’. This may seem strange but in fact, it was a major leap for society and in particular for philosophy. In essence, not only was the real world of distance, the real world itself, subject to the laws of multiplicity but so too were abstractions subject to the laws of multiplicity.

Before this perception philosophy, society, basically looked at existence as:

Diagram #1:
The elements:

1. The ‘real’
2. The ‘real’ illusion




In essence, there were no ‘real illusions’; rather there were simply illusion, abstractions that terminated with the death of the individual, and abstractions, which terminated with the death of the universe.

Zeno was unwittingly taking the first step in establishing the concepts ‘being’ being ‘Being’.



It would be another twenty-five hundred years before we could understand this evolving perception. It would take Boethius, Aristotle, Copernicus, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Russell, Heidegger, Einstein, Dennett, Searle, Husserl, and Hawking before the picture of the ‘real’ existing simultaneously with a ‘real illusion’ would or for that matter could be painted. A new perception regarding what is ‘real’, what is a ‘real illusion’, and how the two were related would not emerge until the end of the second millennium and the beginning of the third millennium. This new perception would present itself within the mind of an unknown theoretical Metaphysician.

But what of Zeno? Zeno, himself, was not implying indirectly let alone directly that there were such things as ‘real illusions’. Nevertheless, the simultaneous existence of the ‘real’ and of a ‘real illusion’, which became the ‘real illusion’ and the ‘real’ depending upon one’s ‘location’ as one examined the two, is in fact what Zeno was unwittingly establishing. In all fairness to Zeno, we must acknowledge Zeno lived in another time and Zeno lacked many of the perceptual tools we have at our disposal today. As such, we must acknowledge Zeno could not logically have participated in, let alone initiated, the details required for this discussion as it presently transpires today.