• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Absolute thought

Can you define your 'search parameters'?

How do you know when your search is over?

A never ending quest is a very old and ancient tradition. The serch for some secret profound revelatun that answers yiur quetions.

Shangi La in the book and movie Lost Horizons. It is a good movie if you can find it on line. A man finds paradise, looses it, and fights hs way back.

It is a reflection of early 20th century utopianism and spiritualism. The search for happiness and contentment.

When I started, my life was falling apart: marriage, health, political ambition, career. I had been interested in philosophy, religion and mysticism in university, but had laid it all aside as fruitless. I was pretty much at the end of my rope when I came across a book in the library of the town where I was teaching. It was Benoit Mandelbrot's The Fractal Geometry of Nature. That book kick-started my intellectual curiosity. I started looking into the books that dealt with the connection between spirituality and mathematics. I started to get pretty disgusted with what I saw as infantile and self-serving approaches to spirituality. I decided that I would try to find one writer who dealt adequately with the whole question of Christ. That would be my benchmark. I found what I was looking for in Constantin Brunner's Our Christ. From there I went to the rest of Brunner's work and found the same satisfaction. I have been proselytizing on this subject for 25 years. I have added a few other teachers to my spiritual college: Harry Waton, John MacMurray, Benjamin De Casseres, and very recently Robert T. Browne. I have found my happiness, but, as Spinoza makes clear, happiness is only complete when it is shared. There is a Brunner Group, and I get along with them. But what I really want is to initiate a world-transforming movement. I don't have the creative nature to do that myself, so I pilfer from the work of my spiritual confreres. Browne's Pantelicon is just what I need for a teaching programme. Now, all I need are students. I am considering paying people to take my courses.
Wow, a lot of male writers listed there--are there no women capable of adding to your enlightenment? Try Janis Joplin, or even Connie Frances. Try Aretha Franklin, if you want something more spiritual. Try, perhaps
Dorothy Day or Flannery O'Coonor, or Toni Morrison.
 
Aristotle. Hylomorphism. Substance - form. From "De Anima". "On The Soul".
Everything is a substance. Substances have forms that define their specific nature.
Since Aristotle knew no real science, no physics, no chemistry et al, all he could write about were vague generalities. Which are pretty useless as working concepts. Without microscopes, telescopes, et al, Aristotle was only capable of dealing with what a human eye could see. Or hear, smell, or feel. Aristotle had nothing to say of the hylomorphism of an electron, a galaxy, or the 4 known great forces. Catholics philosophers, some of them, still play silly games with hylomorphism as if it is meaningful.

According to Aristotle, plants had an appetitive form. They could absorb nutrients from the soil and grow. Animals added to that ability to move. Man, the form of rational thought. That form could exist apart from a human body being a substance in its own right, eternal and immortal.

A substance without form is pretty much nonsense.
 
From Harry Waton's A True monistic philosophy, v.1, p. 23-25:

What is the Absolute? The Absolute is substance. The term substance means to stand under. Substance is that which underlines all realities and processes in existence; all realities and processes in existence are carved out of one absolute, infinite and eternal substance. But what is that substance? Suppose we examine a table. The table appears to be made out of wood. The wood appears to be a solid body of matter, and is nothing else than wood. Yet, when we examine the wood more closely, we find that it is neither solid nor wood. The wood is nothing else than a mass of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other chemical elements, which are relatively to their size as far apart from one another as the earth is from the sun, and these elements are perpetually moving about one another. Thus the table is neither wood nor a solid body. And what about those chemical elements? These chemical elements themselves consist of protons and electrons. Thus the wood and the chemical elements disappear. And what about the protons and the electrons? They are nothing else than forms of energy. Thus all matter disappears. And what about the energy? This is the problem. Before we take up this problem, we must notice the following. All realities in existence, like the table, are nothing else than forms of energy. All realities and processes are carved out of one infinite and eternal energy. This infinite and eternal energy is substance.... What, then, is substance? Spinoza defines substance as that which is in itself and is conceived through itself. What, then, is it which is in itself and which is conceived through itself? All realities and processes in existence exist in substance and are conceived through substance; but substance is in itself, because there is nothing else besides substance; and is conceived through itself, because there is nothing else through which it can be conceived. What, then, is this substance? The answer is: substance is absolute thought—thought without form. All realities and processes are in something else, but thought is in itself. Again, all realities and processes are conceived by thought, but thought can be conceived only by itself. Thought comprehends time, space, matter, motion, force, and so on indefinitely; but thought itself is neither in time, nor in space, nor in matter, nor in anything else, it is in itself. Absolute thought—thought without form—is the substance of all realities and processes in existence. This substance is the Absolute. The Absolute is absolute thought without form. Of the absolute thought we have a direct and intimate consciousness; we are conscious of the thought in us, we think by thought and we live by thought. From the infinite and eternal absolute thought flows through us a stream of absolute thought. If this stream of absolute thought should cease to flow through us, we will cease to exist. The absolute thought is our substance, it is our life, it is our consciousness; so long as this absolute thought flows through us, we live, we are conscious, we think and we act. We become conscious of the absolute thought when it assumes a form, when it assumes the form of a perception, a concept, an idea, a feeling or a state of our body and mind. Absolute thought is in itself, it is implicit in itself. As such it is neither cause nor effect. The Absolute becomes both cause and effect when it becomes explicit, when it comes out from its implicitness and manifests itself explicitly. This explicit manifestation of the Absolute is the first cause and the first effect. Thus we have a trinity: The Absolute, the First Cause and the First Effect. This trinity runs through all infinite and eternal existence. Each and every reality in existence is a manifestation of this trinity. To know and understand any reality or process, we must perceive in it this primordial trinity.
 
Last edited:
Human “civilization” is still in a simian state characterized by patterns of dominance and aggression. Few men and almost no women have an opportunity to develop spiritually. But the change is coming. It is a man’s world, but it will be a woman’s world.
 
From this I conclude that the true Monist eschews paragraph breaks.
The Board format breaks it into two quotations if I insert a paragraph return. I inserted an ellipsis at the paragraph return in the original document.
 
Well given that it's abject nonsense, it's probably not important.

If you examine anything to a finer and finer level of detail, you eventually reach a point where you don't understand what you are looking at.

There are two common responses to that:

People like Newton, Heisenberg, Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Rutherford, etc., etc., make a personal commitment to trying to find out, and to try to understand the things that are currently beyond their understanding.

People like Waton, Geller, Hovind, Ham, etc., etc., instead think "Hey, if I don't understand this, and my audience doesn't either, then I can make up any old shit I like, and if I say it confidently enough, they'll believe it". And then they can use that belief to obtain wealth and/or power and/or fame.

"All realities in existence, like the table, are nothing else than forms of energy." Sure. But that's as useful as saying that all forests are nothing else than a lot of trees - to an audience who have only seen forests from a distance, and don't know what a tree is.

Energy underlies everything. But Waton's lack of understanding of what energy is doesn't justify his piling a bunch of mythological crap onto the word and claiming it to be knowledge.

It's OK not to know everything. It's not OK to make shit up to cover up your ignorance, and it's not OK to tell people that having done so makes you more knowledgeable than they are.

You are following a charlatan and a liar. Why would you do that? Why are you letting him manipulate you? He's been dead since 1959, so it's not as if he even cares...
 
Waton on the Unknowable:

Until the soul becomes intellect, the soul functions as mind, and until then she has only inadequate knowledge. This is the reason why through the senses, the understanding, intuition and reason the soul cannot attain to the adequate knowledge of herself, of God and of things. And this is the reason why all thinkers, who had not yet attained to the intellect, remained in the dark; they saw only the little material world, and even this little world they saw inadequately. The infinite transcendental world was entirely shut out from them. This is the reason why they speak of an Unknowable. Moses, the Prophets and Spinoza knew of no Unknowable, for they attained to the intellect, and the whole infinite existence was revealed to them. The crystallization of this clear idea about the soul and the mind is the bountiful reward for all the labor and struggle it cost to understand Spinoza's philosophy.
 
Thought is mind. Mind is a process. A brain state. Brains are material. No brains, no mind, no thought. Cats, mice, bonobos, goldfish all have brains and mind states of various abilities. It is what brains do. Souls do not exist except as a poetic metaphor. Soul is no more real than fairy dust or magic wands.
 
From Harry Waton's A True monistic philosophy, v.1, p. 23-25:

What is the Absolute? The Absolute is ...(edited out for brevity)... To know and understand any reality or process, we must perceive in it this primordial trinity.
This quote from Waton looks like a variant of neoplatonism. My issue with the platonic Forms or Ideas is there's little to it except the reification of abstract thought. The habit of abstract explaining among humans becomes descriptive of the whole universe...

We humans generalize about things; it's something we do for good and ill. So, for an example, let's say we have some round phenomena - a ball, an eye, a fruit. From these we derive an abstract concept of "roundness". All well and good so far. But if you have a platonic bent of mind, then you want to make the abstract thought of "roundness" to be realer than the ball, eye, or fruit. So rather than getting "roundness" from the round-ish things, the platonist wants those things to have "emanated" out of the abstraction -- out of "absolute thought" in Waton's version.

That's getting it all backwards.
 
^Is roundness a real property of things? If so, what is its nature? Is it an idea? Is it a concept? Whence does it originate? In our own imagination? How about the electric lamp? Is it an idea? Does it precede its physical manifestation? Does it outlive its physical manifestation?
 
^Is roundness a real property of things?
Not that I can tell, no.

I don't see how an idea can be more real than a "physical manifestation".

Something I picked up from Zen that stayed with me, is there's a haze of 'the personal' layered over our perceptions due to the incessant explaining by the mind. This obscures reality more than it clarifies it. That's why the insistence in buddhism on anatta... "no soul"... IOW nothing is inherently the traits we assign to it, as if anything has an essence to it rather than being a temporal confluence of events. So it's too impermanent and inter-dependent to really capture anything with words/concepts. If we can get past the mind's wish to grasp everything and fit it all into our mental pegboards, then we can get a clearer view on reality.

From this POV, the need to fill in the "unknowing" with ideas is a problem to solve.

So, to me, reality is the preverbal details, not the principles that we humans extract from them. We need conceptual maps (sometimes), but they're not more real than the territory.
 
^This is textbook Kantianism. Without the intellect, aka Spinoza's scientific intuition, aka the soul, there is no prospect of attaining clarity on the level of ideas or even the level of material things. All things remain in the cloud of the Unknowable. This is the bankruptcy of human thought, absolute nihilism. Within it, everything perishes. Out of it, escaping from it, there will emerge the truly emancipated human and a renewed planet.
 
I am absolutely sure of my absoluteness, it works for Trump does it not?
 
^And I suppose you would toss Spinoza into the same dung hill.

Spinoza was a man of his times. Though he cut through a lot of religious crap, he knew little true physics, cosmology, biology, nothing about quantum physics, or evolution.

Understandjng Spinoza takes more careful thought than you seem to understand.
 
Back
Top Bottom