confusing the absolute and the relative

[Old River]

But Karl, you've given an extrinsic explanation of a poem-- but an extrinsic explanation fails to appreciate a poem intrinsically.

 

Not everything falls into the categories of "true" or "false": ask ten different people what a poem means and you'll get ten different answers. Engaging with the text, none of these readers are right or wrong (this would include the poet who wrote the poem). Many years ago, I met a novelist, Charles Baxter, who, with amusement told me of one of his short stories being anthologized in a text books. One of the questions was "What does the red bird symbolize?" (as if symbols were mere variables in an algebraic equation with one correct answer). He told me that HE couldn't answer that question! (incidentally, this is one of the reason Plato disliked poets-- they can't give a "straight answer").

 

Most poetry doesn't operate as simple allegory, where an image merely stands for something else, but rather is pregnant with suggestiveness. This is what makes great literature continue to live centuries later-- its not simply exhausted of "information." Poetry doesn't trasmit information, but sets the whole mind in motion, making all kinds of connections. This is why people, especially in this day and age, can't connect to poetry-- all they know is some kind of discursive thinking. We are no longer acquainted with it, which is a pity.

 

Language at best works differently in different contexts: science, or symbolism in religion or literature, roughly corresponding to discursive reason and intuition respectively. There is no one absolute universal way in which language operates, otherwise we'd all be Vulcans. Some things can only be told "slant," as Emily Dickson said. The world is too much in flux to be understood 100% of the time in fixed empirical terms-- at best language can approximate it for certain situations. Forgetting this inadequacy of language in those differing contexts only leads to less, not more, clarity.

 

I'm puzzled as to what Ayn Rand's so-called objectivist ideology has in common with Buddhism or Daoism. Epistemologically, metaphysically, and morally I'm not sure I see any connection except a purely antithetical one. To each their own, of course, but it is still peculiar.

[Old River]

...Is this stanza "true" or is it "false"? ......

 

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

Through the unknown, remembered gate

When the last of earth left to discover

Is that which was the beginning;

At the source of the longest river

The voice of the hidden waterfall

And the children in the apple-tree

Not known, because not looked for

But heard, half-heard, in the stillness

Between two waves of the sea.

Quick now, here, now, always—

A condition of complete simplicity

(Costing not less than everything)

And all shall be well and

All manner of thing shall be well

When the tongues of flames are in-folded

Into the crowned knot of fire

And the fire and the rose are one.

 

(T.S. Eliot, from "Little Gidding," Four Quartets)

[Michael Sternbach]

We should also consider the origins of our allegedly so clear-cut modern terminology.

 

Biblical Hebrew, like all primitive languages, possesses extremely loose word definitions. Our modern languages must be precise and intricate, or else our sophisticated technology would be impossible. This was not the case in early historical times, and it left the writer with a large amount of creative license in how he used his words. For instance, the Hebrew word Yetzirah does not merely translate as “Formation.” In fact, it might indicate any number of related concepts: Formation, Creation, Construction, etc.

 

At the same time, there was no such thing as standardization for spelling or writing at the time. This gave the writer even more creative license, and led to large overlaps in words that were spelled or sounded phonetically similar. The concept of “punning”- today considered a kind of humor- was taken very seriously by ancient bards, scribes and priests. It seems to be mankind's first realization that words and texts might have multiple interpretations.

 

Quoted from:

 

http://kheph777.tripod.com/art_alephbeth.html

[Old River]

Fascinating. The Talmud I suppose would be part of the response to this discovery -- the Torah didn't simply spell things out plainly, but naturally needed to be interpreted. What's the saying: ask two rabbis a question and you'll get three answers?

[redcairo]

I admit I kind of skimmed the thread. This is thoughts when done.

 

1. Planets have perception. They are gods-little-g to us (mostly little compared to medium-G sun and big-G god-the-ever-whatever). Human senses are just some flaps and filters, they're completely arbitrary, one certainly can't judge the awareness of the universe by human senses. We are just acids and enzymes on a substrate of minerals, experiencing space-time.

 

I suspect it takes a certain faculty developed in a person before a degree of rapport can be made with this awareness though.

 

2. I had the wrong idea coming in by the title. I just finished a good book related to use of statistics in nutrition science where the 'absolute' answers would be like "out of hundreds, 1.3 more persons" and the relative would end up "reduces risk by 45%!" or something totally crazy that made me decide never to believe any relative risk statement again in my life.

 

3. The Largers speak answers in two ways simultaneously. Some of proverbs is written like that. I was told it was a form of old Hebrew poetry or 'styled' writing. I think they were just talking to identities like the L's that I think you get it in your head and it just translates it in almost reverse sentence ways.

 

RC

Edited April 14, 2016 by redcairo

[Karl]

But Karl, you've given an extrinsic explanation of a poem-- but an extrinsic explanation fails to appreciate a poem intrinsically.

Not everything falls into the categories of "true" or "false": ask ten different people what a poem means and you'll get ten different answers. Engaging with the text, none of these readers are right or wrong (this would include the poet who wrote the poem). Many years ago, I met a novelist, Charles Baxter, who, with amusement told me of one of his short stories being anthologized in a text books. One of the questions was "What does the red bird symbolize?" (as if symbols were mere variables in an algebraic equation with one correct answer). He told me that HE couldn't answer that question! (incidentally, this is one of the reason Plato disliked poets-- they can't give a "straight answer").

Most poetry doesn't operate as simple allegory, where an image merely stands for something else, but rather is pregnant with suggestiveness. This is what makes great literature continue to live centuries later-- its not simply exhausted of "information." Poetry doesn't trasmit information, but sets the whole mind in motion, making all kinds of connections. This is why people, especially in this day and age, can't connect to poetry-- all they know is some kind of discursive thinking. We are no longer acquainted with it, which is a pity.

Language at best works differently in different contexts: science, or symbolism in religion or literature, roughly corresponding to discursive reason and intuition respectively. There is no one absolute universal way in which language operates, otherwise we'd all be Vulcans. Some things can only be told "slant," as Emily Dickson said. The world is too much in flux to be understood 100% of the time in fixed empirical terms-- at best language can approximate it for certain situations. Forgetting this inadequacy of language in those differing contexts only leads to less, not more, clarity.

I'm puzzled as to what Ayn Rand's so-called objectivist ideology has in common with Buddhism or Daoism. Epistemologically, metaphysically, and morally I'm not sure I see any connection except a purely antithetical one. To each their own, of course, but it is still peculiar.

 

Of course, there is nothing intrinsic in the poem. We can derive some emotional connection from it if we share the authors conceptual vision, or it might leave us cold.

 

I did not say that something could be interpreted differently, I said a poem is a poem. It has a definition. It is written or spoken language. That I hate whisky in no way prevents you from enjoying it. The whisky isn't chemically or materially different, but that does not mean you are stuck with the same sense of it.

 

Of course poetry transmits information. It contains words in a sequence and time. It is a perceptual version of the artists conceptual space. A poem which used the moon would not be much help to someone on a planet bereft of a moon. Art is a concrete of an the artists abstract conceptual thinking. That's why I said its equivalent to giving birth, it's a hard thing to create, maybe the hardest thing of all.

 

You are falling into the same trap as Michael and Nikolai. That you can interpret a word in a certain way, in no way invalidates the word as that word and not another word, or two different words. That a table is not a particular kind of table, size, colour or wood. It sets up that conceptual abstraction waiting for the next piece of information. If it's in a certain form of wording you recognise it as a poem, or an instruction, a shopping list or a story.

 

As soon as logic or reason is mentioned there is a kind of stock reaction that it is empiricism or materialism of some kind. If you can prevent yourself having that knee jerk reaction you can see that I'm not suggesting that kind of thing at all. I'm saying to put things in their correct order. This does not dismiss the roving spiritual conceptual and emotional mix of a human being. It does not make a human into some kind of a robot, but a mix of the spiritual and the material, based in reality, existent, independent and conscious.

 

In a sense you have already answered the 'why' of objectivism as you recognise the interconnection of things. That things are not in silo format when it comes to philosophy.

[Karl]

...Is this stanza "true" or is it "false"? ......

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

Through the unknown, remembered gate

When the last of earth left to discover

Is that which was the beginning;

At the source of the longest river

The voice of the hidden waterfall

And the children in the apple-tree

Not known, because not looked for

But heard, half-heard, in the stillness

Between two waves of the sea.

Quick now, here, now, always—

A condition of complete simplicity

(Costing not less than everything)

And all shall be well and

All manner of thing shall be well

When the tongues of flames are in-folded

Into the crowned knot of fire

And the fire and the rose are one.

(T.S. Eliot, from "Little Gidding," Four Quartets)

 

Presume you are asking me ?

I recognise it as part of a poem. That would be the only question to which I can answer true of false. As it isn't a syllogism-and not readilbly convertible into one because it is a work of art not an argument-then I take it as it is, which is that it isn't my favourite poem on first read, but maybe it will grow on me.

[dust]

Personally I would prefer to blame neo-advaitan teaching rather than belief in souls. 

 

I'll explain my perspective, and I'm sure everyone will understand because it's quite simple, whether or not you agree is a different matter.

 

What I believe is that All That Is, the Self, or however you want to put it, desires to FULLY experience love, truth, joy, and all good things. It desires TOTAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.

 

 

I haven't read the last 3 pages of this topic yet but I can see that you (roger) aren't actually trying to say anything positive about the Holocaust. I almost want to apologize for the tone of my earlier post... but at the same time, I think that what you said was extreme, and indeed the type of thing that can lead to dangerous thinking, and so deserved a somewhat extreme reaction.

 

Bindi, I think belief in souls is generally harmless... but in the end I honestly believe that it is nonsense, and that belief in nonsense can be dangerous. I don't know anything about Neo-Advaita, but it certainly cannot be blamed for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or a number of other religions in which the soul can be used to excuse all manner of behaviour, and so I can only at this point say that the belief in souls is itself negative.

[Old River]

Dustybeijing, I think I can say I agree, certainly insofar that the notion of "souls" almost always rests upon essentialism. Who "I" am (as "consciousness") fluctuates from one moment to the next. I *may* refer to myself when I was 40, 30, 20, or 10-- but to some degree this isn't accurate, as "I" am not that same person. It's a grammatical fiction, and a useful one in certain situations-- but not all-- situations. The root problem of so much of the world's sickness lies in the intersection of grammar and metaphysics, in our tacit belief in essentialism.

[Marblehead]

Yes, "I" is constantly changing, just like everything else.

[thelerner]

Sounds bloody miserable. Like the escalators in hog warts, but mostly never getting to any destination.

actually it isn't even shades of gray.  To be honest I see the world in variations of (most) every color, living color, each one dynamic, capable of change, with truths that reach into the past and future. 

 

It can be confusing, but that's the way it is with eyes wide open.  

[Nikolai1]

 External perceptual concrete to internal perceptual directly experienced. Then internal conceptual abstraction. Does that get us any closer ?

It is the internal conceptual abstraction that differs across person and time, which is why the external perceptual concrete (the word) gets called 'relative'.

 

A word without internal abstraction is just a vibration in the air, like the rustling of the leaves.  It is the fact that it gives rise to mental concepts that defines this vibration as the word.

 

If we are truly to absolutise the word, we must lose the duality of external and internal.  Then the word can find its place in the stream of reality...a vibration in the air followed by an image and a feeling and perhaps a louder vibration.

 

What we can't do is deny the relativism of the word and try to hold on to its function as an event that mist be internally decoded.  Here we become irrational, as all philsophy since de Saussure has shown us.

[Karl]

It is the internal conceptual abstraction that differs across person and time, which is why the external perceptual concrete (the word) gets called 'relative'.

 

A word without internal abstraction is just a vibration in the air, like the rustling of the leaves. It is the fact that it gives rise to mental concepts that defines this vibration as the word.

 

If we are truly to absolutise the word, we must lose the duality of external and internal. Then the word can find its place in the stream of reality...a vibration in the air followed by an image and a feeling and perhaps a louder vibration.

 

What we can't do is deny the relativism of the word and try to hold on to its function as an event that mist be internally decoded. Here we become irrational, as all philsophy since de Saussure has shown us.

That isn't what I'm saying Nikolai. Words can and do change, as do definitions. I'm not saying the word itself is sacrosanct and permanently glued to an object-that's nominalism-it just means whatever it means at any given time and place. It is a written/spoken representation of a concept. The perception from which it springs is a directly perceived concrete reality.

 

There isn't anything relative about it. We perceive existence directly, we conceptualise it, then label that concept with a verbal representation. We trade concepts through the currency of words, symbols and pictures. Sometimes these words might not accurately communicate the concept due to the experience of the traders.

 

We see that all the time when trying to communicate in a foreign country. We can shout out the English word as loud as we want, but to the Italian shopkeeper it means nothing. Eventually by hand gestures, sounds, judicious pointing and trail/error we can get across what we want. The shopkeeper might enlighten us to the word he uses to describe that object. We don't then believe that word describes only that particular object, we know it's the same concept with a different label attached. We make the transition easily because it's the same as the concept we currently hold in our heads and we hold the concept that there are languages that have different words for the same things. The words aren't magic, they are part of how we built a hierarchy of concepts as we began learning.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Karl

[Old River]

However, there are words in other languages that do not translate into, say, Engkish at all-- such as the Portuguese "saudade" the Japanese "mono no aware." At best, we can attempt to approximate such foreign words, but our different cultural backgrounds make those interior senses still inaccessible.

 

Language operates like the keys of a piano, but there are certain experiences which don't always carry over-- like notes "between the cracks" which the piano cannot play. So-called "blue notes," for example, can only be approximated on the piano, whereas a guitar or human voice can easily hit those "in between" notes.

[Karl]

However, there are words in other languages that do not translate into, say, Engkish at all-- such as the Portuguese "saudade" the Japanese "mono no aware." At best, we can attempt to approximate such foreign words, but our different cultural backgrounds make those interior senses still inaccessible.

Language operates like the keys of a piano, but there are certain experiences which don't always carry over-- like notes "between the cracks" which the piano cannot play. So-called "blue notes," for example, can only be approximated on the piano, whereas a guitar or human voice can easily hit those "in between" notes.

Agreed. There are many words from different cultures and philosophies which are completely undefinable. They are abstractions which are floating concepts. A good example of a very common word is freedom. A person thinking of freedom might get an idea of a himself running down an empty beach, an authoritarian Government would say you are free if you aren't required to take hard decisions. Another is 'propaganda'. It's a very well used word, but trying to define it is an exercise in frustration-it doesn't mean anything in particular that sme other word does not more appropriately describe. A typical religious word 'God' -best of luck with that :-)

Edited April 14, 2016 by Karl

[Orion]

It's all just part of the One, whatever's happening is what's happening. It contains both the relative and the objective. We can find both in everything, like yin and yang. They are inseparable.

 

The discussion about it is tantamount to mental masturbation. No one can say how anyone will choose to act in any given moment, or what it means. It all arises and dissolves of its own accord. Mind applies meaning... like relative and objective.

 

It's all right here, right now. I know that seems simplistic and maybe obvious, but...

 

Parsing reality in this way is not very productive.

[Bud Jetsun]

For a word to have the same meaning, it could only happen through being interpreted by the same consciousness. Even for the same being, the consciousness of the being has already altered by first having been asked the meaning prior.

 

 

Two people can not hear the same thing or see the same thing anymore than one could be splashed by the same wave at the beach twice.

 

 

The limitations of all things a being may or may not have the illusion of knowing were once first filtered through some sensory type of phenomena. It doesn't matter if it's from an interpretation of light reflecting off droplets of ink on paper, from a ear drum vibrations in a college lecture hall, or sitting in the forest being with nature. If it's reached some form of a humans conceptualization of a thing, it was filtered through senses that inherently can only bio-electro-chemically function to input data through relative differences in perception of some sensory phenomena.

 

 

If it's a fathomable thing/concept, it's inherently non-absolute, because it's already been broken down and categorized replacing the reality into some relative conceptualized imperfect approximation that would be impossible to be the same twice.

 

 

It's easy to write the infinity symbol. It's easy say it's 'understood'and defined. All the other words ultimately are no better off, as they are defined only through a web of other imperfect relationships.

 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Edited April 15, 2016 by Bud Jetsun

[Karl]

A word doesn't necessarily have exactly the same meaning for everyone, but it is always exactly the same word that everyone sees.

 

The word is an absolute the meaning that each person ascribes to it is an absolute. That meaning to that one person is an absolute to every other person and the universe.

 

One person is most likely to ascribe a slightly different variation to the next. That isn't provable, but is certainly likely. Yet, as long as the word has been accurately interpreted there is no confusion because the concept that arises is a pure abstraction. If the word requires further descriptors to make it work then it doesn't register as anything but a connections word. For instance you cannot form anything out of:

 

The

Is

Concluded

Eaten

 

The grammar is fractured, the best we can do with 'the' is to imagine some noun might follow, but it might be a verb so our minds can only cycle between many options of 'what comes next' and in the absence of new information there is just mental fog.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Karl

[Bud Jetsun]

The grammar is fractured, the best we can do with 'the' is to imagine some noun might follow, but it might be a verb so our minds can only cycle between many options of 'what comes next' and in the absence of new information there is just mental fog.

 

 

What if, a being had not had the grammar construct model indoctrinated? Do they still experience a reality?

 

 

Do atoms explaining atoms have a mechanism to find Truth of the nature of what IS? Do atoms explaining atoms have a mechanism to even explain the nature of there own mind games with more mind games, no matter how clever of rules they make up for the game and stick to them?

 

 

The mental fog is humans deluded to the point of replacing the nature of reality with some human mind constructs rather than appreciation of the real.

 

 

Real to the limit of a beings ability to know it is some appearent perception of phenomena. Going even one step further to interpretion or charactorizing phenomena becomes exclusively a minds choice in subjective delusion of what may or may not be.

 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Edited April 15, 2016 by Bud Jetsun

[Nikolai1]

A word doesn't necessarily have exactly the same meaning for everyone, but it is always exactly the same word that everyone sees.

 

The word is an absolute the meaning that each person ascribes to it is an absolute. That meaning to that one person is an absolute to every other person and the universe.

 

 

I do understand why you say this, and it reminds me of this very Zen dictum: 'Each moment is the Universe.'

 

The trouble is, your words will strike most ears as an argument for a 'plurality of Absolutes' - a contradiction in terms.

 

I think at the intellectual level the problem is resolved when we assume the Absolute to be a transcendent yet ontolgically empty category.  Then all the moments are just instances of the Absolute, and only relatively true at their own level. 

 

The Absolute therefore both contains the relative and is in fact not separate from the relative (and it is this latter case which allows the word to be an absolute, as you argue).

Edited April 15, 2016 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

What if, a being had not had the grammar construct model indoctrinated? Do they still experience a reality?

Do atoms explaining atoms have a mechanism to find Truth of the nature of what IS? Do atoms explaining atoms have a mechanism to even explain the nature of there own mind games with more mind games, no matter how clever of rules they make up for the game and stick to them?

The mental fog is humans deluded to the point of replacing the nature of reality with some human mind constructs rather than appreciation of the real.

Real to the limit of a beings ability to know it is some appearent perception of phenomena. Going even one step further to interpretion or charactorizing phenomena becomes exclusively a minds choice in subjective delusion of what may or may not be.

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

They experience reality directly, everybody does regardless of words. That should be obvious from childhood where there is no vocabulary. A baby must build concepts from perceptions.

 

A mental fog is only conceptual. It is when you have a higher concept then realise you actually have no precise definition for the concept. In fact it is floating. It is that way because it is not grounded in reality. This was something I tried explaining in the 'dream/reality' thread. We can have all kinds of floating concepts and sometimes we attempt to evade actual definitions in case the reality crushes the dream, or because we generally have been unknowingly ignorant.

[Karl]

I do understand why you say this, and it reminds me of this very Zen dictum: 'Each moment is the Universe.'

 

The trouble is, your words will strike most ears as an argument for a 'plurality of Absolutes' - a contradiction in terms.

 

I think at the intellectual level the problem is resolved when we assume the Absolute to be a transcendent yet ontolgically empty category. Then all the moments are just instances of the Absolute, and only relatively true at their own level.

 

The Absolute therefore both contains the relative and is in fact not separate from the relative (and it is this latter case which allows the word to be an absolute, as you argue).

No there is no plurality of absolutes. There can be plurality of concepts. The external perception is not the internal conception, but the direct perception of existence is direct and perfect.

 

You are trying to keep the sceptics/sophist argument of each moment meaning no absolutes. It's your natural inclination to want reality to be maleable. For you it accomplishes the confirmation of a conceptual belief. That it is not that way will contradict what you believe to be true, but you are going to try and make it work anyway.

 

Relative is only appropriate to existence. If you cannot conceive existence you cannot conceive absolutes. That makes relativism a product of conception unrelated in any sense to existent reality.

 

That is what you believe to be true and you are unshakeable in that conviction even as you write that something is true, that you rely on reality to offer proof and yet you deny reality. That's the paradox that can't be resolved unless you get rid of your current belief.

 

People say that there are no absolutes without realising that they are using that what they are saying is an absolute. In essence: there are absolutely no absolutes.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Karl

[roger]

Yes, "I" is constantly changing, just like everything else.

 

Or is it only one's experience of themselves that changes? One's self-concept and ego change, but their absolute, eternal reality and divine nature do not.

 

I agree with the teaching that we are pure consciousness. The Hindus say, we are sat-chit-ananda, absolute existence-consciousness-bliss.

 

To put it another way, we are content, not form. Only form changes, the underlying reality remains the same and is beyond time.....it's already in the "future" and is therefore beyond change.

[Karl]

Or is it only one's experience of themselves that changes? One's self-concept and ego change, but their absolute, eternal reality and divine nature do not.

 

I agree with the teaching that we are pure consciousness. The Hindus say, we are sat-chit-ananda, absolute existence-consciousness-bliss.

 

To put it another way, we are content, not form. Only form changes, the underlying reality remains the same and is beyond time.....it's already in the "future" and is therefore beyond change.

 

Consciousness itself is finite. Only a limited number of things can be held in the focus of awareness at one time. To extend ones grasp beyond a mere handful of concretes-to deal with totality-contents have to be compressed in order to economise the units required to convey the content. This is the function of concepts; To reduce a vast amount of information to a minimal number of units. This is not unlike an algorithm used in a modern computer. It is in effect a space saver.

 

In other words conceptualisation is a method of expanding consciousness by reducing the number of its contents units. If one wishes to literally expand consciousness one must improve ones ability to reason by consistent, logical use of the mind. Thinking is a fully active process and has to be practiced consistently and rigorously in order to ensure every integration is as free of error as possible. Like any activity, the more one practices it diligently, the greater the reward.

 

We cannot change the quantity of consciousness but we can improve the quality of consciousness. Those changes are real. We can improve our own qualities. If we are in good health and a safe, stable environment the potential exists in everyone of us to become genius.

 

First we must obey nature and then we can transform nature. There are things we cannot change and things we can. The most important tool we have is our minds and we have an unlimited capacity to improve them. Not by filling them with memorised information but by utilising reason and logic to make the tool more effective, sharper, faster, less error prone, more productive in order that we create the greatest chance of obtaining values which produce the greatest happiness. This is the greatest bliss of all.

[Marblehead]

Or is it only one's experience of themselves that changes? One's self-concept and ego change, but their absolute, eternal reality and divine nature do not.

Yes, I understand that this is your perspective.  However, I do not hold to the concept of an absolute "I".  After I die and I am still conscious I will likely change my mind.