Tractate 1 : The Error of Zeno (continued)

Concrete/Physical Functionality
During Zeno’s time in history, it was thought the universe existed and the universe was thought to be the ‘only’ ‘container’ for both the concrete/physical – multiplicity and abstraction -seamlessness.



As such, abstract functionality becomes confused with concrete/physical functionality not because it became so but because there was no other perception available to those living at the time of Zeno.

Because abstraction and the concrete were viewed as being all within one container, those of that period became not only confused but remain confused. This confusion continued to remain in place for the next twenty-five hundred years and in fact, remains in place today. In fact, this perceptual confusion has had no potential alternative replacement until the development of the metaphysical concept of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ or generically speaking, symbiotic panentheism.

Removing the physical while leaving the abstract intact:

Three factors are involved with ‘being’ being ‘Being’: 1. you, individuality/seamlessness, exists, 2. the universe – the physical/multiplicity, exists, and 3. causation, seamlessness/totality, exists. This needs some clarification for these are stated, as we would perceive them to be, from the point of reference of our being located within the universe itself.



There is no outside to the universe from this point of view, from the point of view of our being within the concrete/physical, being where it is that no abstract seamlessness exists.

If we leave the concrete, the physical, multiplicity, behind by stepping out of the realm of the physical and into the realm of the abstract we obtain …



There is no universe from this point of view, from the point of view of our being within abstraction, being where it is that no concreteness exists.

So now, what are the three factors, the truths, which remain? The three truths remain but now they become: 1. I exist, 2. process exists, and 3. totality exists. This could perhaps better be expressed as totality being the summation of its three parts: individuality, action – process/reality, and totality minus the specific individually of ‘I’. Action – process/reality in this case is experiences, which have occurred as opposed to action – process/reality that could occur.

To shorten this up we might better express it as 1. Individuality – ‘being’, the noun, 2. process – being, the verb of action, and 3. ‘Being’, the noun, which in this case is the summation of individuality and process, or Being and Nothingness as Sartre would say. But Sartre had it wrong. First nothingness does not evolve out of individuality, out of ‘being’, as he implied. Rather nothingness evolves out of totality, Being. Secondly, nothingness is not the summation of negation for negation is as much an abstract as the positive. Nothingness rather is something and it is from this something of nothingness that process evolves, action’s potentiality emerges, physicalness literally ‘pops’, multiplicity springs forth as a ‘reality’ in and of itself, yet all become an interactive part of seamlessness.

Nothingness is not negation; rather nothingness is just that nothing, the lack of all things and non-things, the lack of, becomes literally nothing at all. As such, is it something? No, it is nothing. It is only a noun when viewed from ‘within’ nothingness itself, when viewed from ‘within’ the physical itself, the universe itself. Nothingness on the other hand becomes a verb, an abstraction when viewed from ‘within’ abstraction, seamlessness. Nothingness is process when viewed from ‘outside’ the physical universe.

The truth ‘I exist.’ vs. the truth ‘You exist.’:
What is the difference between the two, between ‘I exist’ And ‘You exist’? From your point of view, there is a significant difference. From my point of view, there is a significant difference. From the point of view of Being – totality – ‘all is one’, there is a significant difference. From the point of view within a physical realm, there is a significant difference. From the point of view separated from ‘all is one’, there is basically no difference, for, from the point of view removed from it all, from the point of view of being outside it all, although there is no such place, there is specifically a difference but, fundamentally, there is no difference.

And just what does all this mean? It means that the ‘I’ and ‘you’ specifically are just that but on the other hand, fundamentally represent ‘a’ commonality in multiplicity, in particular, individuality as well as representing simultaneously a commonality in seamlessness, in particular, totality – ‘oneness’.

Now it is crucial to keep in mind, that if there is no free will, there is no individuality for the whole becomes the whole and that is the end of it. On the other hand, if there is free will of individuality the whole now becomes the whole, seamlessness, by means of the summation of individuality, by means of incrementalism, by means of multiplicity.

The existence of free will or no free will, determinism, are two entirely different scenarios and each perception germinates its own unique actions, reactions, and ambience, in both the abstract sense of reality and the physical sense of reality.

When one ‘steps out’ of both the physical and the abstract, it becomes understandable, that it is not ‘you exist’, nor ‘I exist’, which becomes the first truth but rather individuality becomes the first truth.

Within the concept of the metaphysical system of symbiotic panentheism, a Cartesian system lying ‘within’ and ‘driving’ a non-Cartesian system, the first truth of physical reality would be ‘you exist’, the individual exists, multiplicity exists. It is the vast majority of ‘you’s’, which came before the ‘I’. In the realm of the abstract, however, it is the ‘I exist’, which becomes the ‘first’ truth. It is in the abstract where your existence could have no meaning to me until after my consciousness became just that consciousness. In short the, my, virgin consciousness had to swell, expand, develop before you became an entity. Without the ‘me’, the 'I', you could not exist to me.

Thus, we have removed the physical, the concrete, in order to understand Zeno from a slightly different point of view. Thus we removed the physical, we removed the concrete immersed ‘within’ time and moved time to be a factor of the individual in order to better understand seamlessness. The process of removing the physical allows us to view ourselves from outside the physical itself. In fact, the process of removing the physical not only allows us to view ourselves from outside the physical but to view ourselves with the physical dissolved. Thus it is we are able to step beyond this physical thing called the concrete, the physical, or what we would call ‘process’ when viewed from the abstract perspective.

We are going to take one more step. We are going to step out of the abstract. We as a single piece of individuality will do so by regressing back to the point at which our consciousness was ‘virgin’, had potential to be but had not yet become.

Having regressed back to this point of ‘nothingness’, we will step ‘outside’ abstraction itself. This process of stepping ‘outside’ abstraction itself places us ‘within’ a place that does not exist. Even though it is impossible to limit the unlimitable, to limit abstraction we will do so anyway. Having removed the physical we find abstraction, we have no concept with which to replace this abstraction should we then remove it. To speculate where we would be once the physical is removed and then speculate what remains if the abstract is removed next provides no rational base for us to stand ‘within’. Having acknowledged this dilemma, we will now proceed to ignore the dilemma and step above totality in order to view totality.

This process of stepping ‘above’ totality in order to view totality is made partially possible through having left an individual intact while hypothetically regressing that individual to the point of being a ‘virgin consciousness’, to the point of being finally ‘nothing’. This allowed us to place this nonexistent existence outside of abstraction itself, a location that does not exist. In essence, we have done nothing and placed it nowhere.

It is from here we will begin to understand the non-understandable.

And what is the first thing we see when viewing totality from the point of view ‘above’ totality? We see summation is just that, summation. We see the ‘I’ from the point of view of the abstract, immersed within the abstract. We see ‘you’ from the point of view of process, immersed within the physical, the universe. We see individuality from the point of view of it all. The point is we see ‘individuality’ as a part of it all.



Abstract Functionality
Our understanding of abstraction emerges as we gain an understanding of the interrelationship between multiplicity and seamlessness.

As the increments of individuality move from points of virgin consciousness and experience through the process of existing within the physical universe, they become unique. These pieces of unique ‘knowing’, these pieces of unique awareness, pick up time as a part of their existence.

When these pieces, increments of multiplicity, emerge out of the physical (die) they enter the totality of abstraction, enter an existence void of time, enter a ‘location’ where time is found ‘within’ the increments of individuality rather than individuality found ‘within’ time. It is the process of the virgin consciousnesses having grown into incremental pieces of knowing and then moving from the concrete into the abstract that we find abstractual existence itself growing. Thus abstraction grows, expands its very self.



New virgin consciousness are continually emerging ‘in’ the physical to find themselves expanding evolving into increments of awareness of awareness itself.

This concept would appear to imply we are all a part of totality. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Rather it goes beyond implying such a concept and instead outright and pointedly states that to be the case. Its very philosophical name: ‘being’ being ‘Being’ states this to be the case.

Being a part of G’d is not a new idea:
The concept, our being a part of, a piece of Causation, a part of Being, an increment of God is considered to be a blasphemous perception in the eyes of today’s western religions, today’s western society. The concept our being a part of the whole, being a piece of Causation, being a part of ‘Being’, and being an increment of God is a basic principle, which emerges out of the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ or what could generically be termed symbiotic panentheism.

Is such a perception new to western thought?

Epictetus, philosopher, first century A.D.

‘The Golden Sayings of Epictetus:

IX:
… Whereas if Caesar were to adopt you, your haughty looks would be intolerable: will you not be elated at knowing that you are the son of God? Now however it is not so with us: but seeing that in our birth these two things are commingled-the body which we share with animals, and the Reason and Thought which we share with the Gods, many decline towards this unhappy kinship with the dead, few rise to the blessed kinship with the Divine.

XV:
If what philosophers say of the kinship of God and Men be true, what remains for men to do but as Socrates did:-never, when asked one’s country, to answer, ‘I am an Athenian or a Corinthian,’ but ‘I am a citizen of the world.’

XVI:
… but to all things that are born and grow upon the earth, and in an especial manner to those endowed with Reason (for those only are by their nature fitted to hold communion with God, being by means of Reason conjoined with Him)-why should not such an one call himself a citizen of the world? Why not a son of God:…

… while to have God for our Maker and Father, and Kinsman, shall not this set us free from sorrows and fears?

XVII:
… after recognizing their kindred to the Gods, and their bondage in these chains of the body…

… Are we not in a manner kinsmen of the Gods, and have we not come from them?

XVIII:
… Friends, wait for God. When He gives the signal, and releases you from this service, then depart to Him. But for the present, endure to dwell in the place wherein He hath assigned you your post. Short indeed is the time of your habitation therein, and easy to those that are thus minded….

…Stay: depart not rashly hence!

XXI:
How did Socrates bear himself in this regard? How else than as became one who was fully assured that he was the kinsman of the Gods?

XXII:
If God had made that part of His own nature, which He severed from Himself and gave to us, liable to be hindered or constrained either by Himself or any other, He would not have been God, nor would He have been taking care of us as He ought…

XXIII:
… Most of us dread mortification of the body, and would spare no pains to escape anything of that end. But of mortification of the soul we are utterly heedless.

XXXIII:
Knowest thou what a speck thou art in comparison with the universe?-That is, with respect to the body; since with respect to Reason, thou art not inferior to the Gods, nor less than they. For the greatness of Reason is not measured by length or height, but by the resolves of the mind. Place then they happiness in that wherein thou art equal to the Gods.

XXXIV:
… And if you are stationed in a high position, are you therefore forthwith to set up for a tyrant? Remember who you are, and whom you rule, that they are by nature your kinsmen, your brothere, the offspring of God.

But I paid a price for them, not they for me.

Do you seee whether you are looking-down to the earth, to the pit, to those despicable laws of the dead? But to the laws of the Gods you do not look.

XXXVI:
… If then all things that grow, nay, our own bodies, are thus bound up with the whole, is not this still truer of the soul? And if our souls are bound up and in contact with God, as being very parts and fragments plucked from Himself,…

LXI:
… Were an image of God present, thou wouldst not dare to act as thou dost, yet, when God Himself is present within thee, beholding and hearing all, thou dost not blush to think such thought or do such deeds, O thou that are insensible of thine own nature and liest under the wrath of God!

It appears the concept of our being a part of totality, a piece of the Whole, a part of First Cause, a part of God is more universal in terms of human history than we have previously been lead to believe.

We in the twentieth century think we have advanced the cause of humankind by cutting ourselves off from the perception of our being a part of something other than matter and energy.

Who is it then that really is the blasphemer? Is the one who elevates the nature of being and thus irrationalizes the actions of abuse a blasphemer or is the one who debases the nature of being and thus rationalizes the actions of abuse a blasphemer?

Epictetus may not have concluded you are ‘inside’ God, as does symbiotic panentheism. Epictetus may not have deduced you ‘impact’ God, as does symbiotic panentheism, but there is no denying he did, as is shown from his aphorisms, rationalize you are the ‘son’ of God, a piece of the divine, as does symbiotic panentheism.

Now is such a perception just an old dilapidated relic of the ancient Greek philosophers? We will explore this question in great detail when we discuss Einstein and time, Chapter 9: Einstein – The error of:

Zeno himself says it:
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 think of Reality as a single indivisible One. (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Robert Audi, Cambridge University Press, 1995)

In short:



Or what one might call:

Religiously speaking: symbiotic panentheism
Scientifically speaking: symbiotic panentheism
Philosophically speaking: symbiotic panentheism

Or

‘being’ being ‘Being’
But what does this have to do with seamlessness and multiplicity?

Seamlessness exists in the abstract, outside the physical. Seamlessness is also found ‘within’ the physical. The seamlessness found ‘within’ the physical is bounded within packets, increments of individuality as established through experiencing the physical as individuality moves through space, through distance. The seamlessness of abstraction found ‘within’ the physical is found immersed within time, seamless time.

The multiplicity of individuality:
The packet of individuality gains experience, knowledge of its own existence through experience. This experiencing, gaining of existence, acquiring of knowledge, occurred merely by passing through the physical, passing through the universe within which time stretches from boundary to boundary. What then happens to time? Time is, in essence, attached to the very experiences the packet of individuality accumulates.

This packet of individuality then moves into seamlessness, abstraction, and adds its abstraction, adds the awareness of its experiences, adds knowledge to total abstraction.



Now how is it distance can be seamless, undivided, when located ‘within’ abstraction?



Time permeates every part of the physical universe. In abstraction, there is no time existing between point A and point B. as such it is possible to go from A to B instantaneously. Now is this logical? Actually, yes it is logical. To go from one point of thought to another, be it thoughts of location or thoughts of concepts, is an instantaneous process. As an example, one can be sitting in a chair in one city and instantaneously move one’s thoughts, move one’s abstractual presence, to another city, planet, galaxy or even another universe. In fact one could move one’s self beyond the very boundary of the whole itself..

This is in essence the realm of theoretical metaphysics.

Therefore, in answer to the question: Is it possible to move instantaneously from point A to point B? The answer is yes. In fact we do it all the time.

What does this all imply? This complete treatise involving Zeno implies, directly demonstrates, the logic regarding two locations of existence: abstractual location separate from physical location, seamlessness separate from multiplicity. This is not to say seamlessness does not exist within multiplicity nor does it suggest multiplicity does not exist within seamlessness. Rather, the two exist, one ‘within’ the other simultaneously.

It is only through this new perception, through the perception generated by the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism, that we can rationally, reasonably resolve Zeno’s paradox.

We now understand that:
Zeno is a vital link in moving our perceptual understanding forward regarding the ‘system’ being filled with multiplicity, into that of being ‘the’ system filled with both multiplicity and seamlessness. As such, both multiplicity and seamlessness, with the help of Zeno, now have a location within which each dominates. As such, the understanding regarding the role of multiplicity and seamlessness as well as the understanding regarding the interrelationship between multiplicity and seamlessness no longer remain in a state of confusion. Even more interestingly, the existence of such an interrelationship is not only recognized as a significant aspect of the ‘larger’ system but it is now understood how seamlessness and multiplicity interact one with the other