Tractate 1 : The Error of Zeno (continued)

Before we leave Zeno,
Lets examine a few more aspects regarding the logic
Regarding

Symbiotic Panentheism

It all lies in the details:

On

‘being’ being ‘Being’
And why place a question mark following science? We place a question mark following science for science has yet to agree to the concept of existence without time.

But, one may protest, neither has philosophy confirmed its agreement regarding an existence without time. The difference is the philosophical argument has been put forward in detail, via this work, and as such it exists. Until an overwhelming rationale such as this work has been logically torn apart and its demise confirmed by the majority of philosophers, it remains what it is:

A new metaphysical perception incorporating the simultaneous existence of a non-Cartesian and Cartesian where the non-Cartesian system is ‘powered’ by the Cartesian system.

Lets examine how this new perception would deal with such a complex statement. In essence, we are about to delve deeper into Zeno’s concepts of multiplicity and seamlessness.

Calculus is but a tool – it does not eliminate what is
Calculus helps us mentally move from point A to point B in a smooth transitional manner but it does not eliminate the concept of multiplicity. How is it we can assume the Greek concept of the incremental ‘is’ rather than the new perception of no incremental segments of existence?

We can be fairly certain the existence of the incremental of multiplicity, exists. Not only does the concept of the incremental, multiplicity appear all around us but the incremental, multiplicity, lies at the heart of individuality. The individual is an incremental slice of total awareness, knowing. If the individual is not a packet in and of itself interacting with other independent packets of individuality, than the individual becomes sliding pieces of experience fusing with other packets which all in the end loose their property of being independent of, distinct from, each other. The process, the concept of seamless individualism, leads to the loss of individuality itself through the process of universal fusion with the whole.

The process of the individual fusing with other individuals is the process the establishment, the leaders of our specie, want individuals to accept. The loss of individuality is the driving force within our specie, which generates perceptions of superiority of one over another. The fusion of individuals into a single entity, into singularity, generates the concept of our specie being superior to other species of the universe, generates the concept of the ends justifies the means, generates the concept of ‘let’s get ‘em boys’. The concept ‘we are one’, ‘there is an end to it all’, ‘there is no individuality’, all gain their coherency and strength through the concept ‘death is the end of it all’, the end of your existence.

It is only through the concept of ‘don’t think for yourself let me do it for you’ that ‘the’ leader and thus ‘the’ ‘special’ individual gains power while the masses lose their individuality through being just that, the masses. It is through the concept of fusion, seamlessness, as opposed to the acceptance of individuality, multiplicity, that individuality loses all its uniqueness upon death. It is only through the perceptual establishment of the concept ‘seamlessness prevails’ which reinforces the faith we have in letting others think for us rather than thinking for ourselves that we find the individual looses its significance and thus is rationally treated as it is: positively/supportively and negatively/abusively.

How does calculus fit into all this? Calculus is a tool needed to help us move beyond the concept of incrementalism, move on with our process of functioning ‘within’ the universe, functioning ‘within’ the real illusion. As much as Mathematicians yearn for the elimination of the paradoxes multiplicity generates, Calculus does not eliminate the individual points, does not eliminate the concept of distance, does not eliminate the concept of dividing ‘it all’ into smaller parts, does not eliminate the simple concept of the incremental.

As far as we are aware, the smallest part of the Whole that affects ourselves directly, is the individual packet of the abstract, the increment of knowing, from which the very concept of knowledge comes.

The basic unit of the whole of knowing is not the quark nor the ‘string particle’ but the individual. As such, lets look at the individual more closely in terms of its symbolic representation through our continued use of the mathematical concept - a number line.

Incrementalism and the Individual:
We can now take:



And simplify its representation in order to expand upon our understanding of it.



In spite of having simplified matters, we understand this to be a representation of the individual. We also understand the individual to be an entity existing within more than ‘one’ dimension when it comes to existing within our particular universe. As such, our understanding of the individual grows to become two dimensional:



And grows again to become three dimensional:



And we must not forget time in all this:



This then becomes:



Which becomes:



Or to simplify matters



In essence, we begin to understand that time is found ‘within’ an increment of an individual rather than an increment of an individual found ‘within’ time.

In short, we begin to see time as a function of the individual increment rather than the reverse. From this point forward in this discussion, it is imperative not to lose track of the concept that time is not being referred to as simply a characteristic of ‘an’ ‘aware’ ‘being’. We assume we have awareness but all existences, be they ‘aware’ or otherwise (rocks, trees, rivers…), would ‘contain’ time. Thus time is an innate characteristic of simply ‘existing’ ‘within’ reality, existing ‘within’ the universe, existing ‘within’ the ‘real illusion’ of the universe, if viewed from ‘within’ the relative position of the abstract.

If we reduce the apparent size of the diagram above representing the individual, we obtain:



And further reduction gives us:



and again:



If we place this increment within the new perception , into the perception of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism, we obtain:



With such a perception, time becomes a factor of the entity rather than the entity a factor of time. (The ramifications of this perception and its potential emergent significance when related to Einstein and his perception of relativistic time will be discussed in Chapter 9: Einstein and i.)

So what exactly is it we have developed with this series of thoughts? We have developed an understanding of the Greek concept regarding incrementalization as it pertains to the individual. The individual begins with ‘virgin consciousness’ and moves on to gain experience, an infinite amount of experience, as we now understand.

So it is we understand…



… when magnified appears as:



This perception leads to our understanding that it is not time which gives infiniteness to life experience but rather existence itself, which gives infiniteness to life experiences. It is the concept of concrete, physical, functionality as implied by Zeno’s multiplicity found within the concrete, the physical, the universe itself that imparts a sense of the beginning, zero, and infiniteness, the end, upon each and every incremental piece of awareness.

Now that we have a perception of the individual, having its own identity separate from other identities, now what? Now we can put them together in a simplistic format and we get a simplistic understanding of a new perception of time in regards to the individual and the individual, be it an individual with or without awareness, to the physical.

So it is that not only does incremental motion through the concept of space/distance become an aspect of our physical reality but also likewise individuality becomes an aspect of incrementalization, multiplicity as Zeno would say.