I started this blog as a sort of philosophical notebook, formally presenting my philosophical meditations and detailing their progression. I seek here to present a coherent overview of their main ideas. This page should be treated as superseding all previous work: it is the most revised and recent account.
The purpose of this page is to present an introduction to the ideas of philosophy; it is not a rigorous argument for them. As such, I try to link the reader to more detailed articles; but note that these may be outdated compared to the recent presentation, and the articles suppose a different ordering of ideas as presented here, so may not be immediately accessible until this whole page has been read.
I make intention to publish a book 'The Unity of Being' that will unite all these meditations into one treatise, God willing.
Section I: Ontology
In which we study Being through the introduction of the archetypes of singularity and form.
The Part and the Whole
I define Metaphysics as the study of reality in the most abstract sense. Ontology is the study of 'being'.
A category is a word that may be predicated to an intuited class. For example, the word 'blue' yields a category of all things to which it may be predicated, in this case the class of blue objects.
Being is defined as the category to which all things may be predicated. In this it is unique in identifying all such words to equality; and so the word 'being' as previously stated acquires meaning and intensive definition. A being is a particular object in the category of being that the mind intuits as meaningful. Any meaningful word can hence be conceived as a being; for example, a star is a being. [Read more]
We now present the two most important definitions that are the seeds of all further contemplation.
A Singularity is a totality of form united in essence. Forms are the individual parts of a singularity. Singularity and form are archetypes of thought.
More intuitively, a singularity is an idea conceived as an abstract unity, a universal; its forms are the individual particular instances of the idea. An important example: being can be conceived as a singularity, and its forms are all individual instances of beings. In a likewise manner, any intuited category can be conceived as a singularity, with its forms the objects it may be predicated unto.
The formal definitions are circular until we say as an axiom that a Singularity exists. This is easy to justify: we can conceive of some element of existence in its entirety, and thus this element is its own singularity. From a singularity we may speak of its respective forms.
More first definitions for philosophy may be found here. Some consequences of the definitions as first meditations on philosophy are here.
Ontology
The phrase 'the whole is greater than the part' is omnipresent in our writing. What I mean by this is that the whole can give rise to its parts, but the parts cannot give rise to the whole without already being whole. The existence of the part is dependant upon the existent of the whole. This is the source whence singularity and form derive their names: singularity as the whole is one, forms as the part are many, with their plurality emanating from, and contained within, the unity of singularity.
An analogy is of the circle and its segments. The segments of a circle are defined, and conceived, as parts of the circle; the circle is their whole. The parts of a circle, and more generally the parts of a whole, clearly cannot be conceived without reference to the whole. The whole is present in the intention of the parts; it is ontologically prior. But form the conception of the whole it is tautological that we can conceive of its parts. Thus the whole is greater than the part in conception.
To give this abstract discussion some concrete foundation, we consider an example. Let us consider a number, 2 will do. In what follows the expression '2' refers to the concept purely as word, and the expression 2 refers to the concept in its intentional meaning.
Now, what is '2'? Let us start with the basic answer: an abstract concept describing pairs of objects. Look around you and choose a particular object, and imagine them being in a pair. We say there are '2' objects.
But the number 2 itself does not refer to a particular pair, but it is an abstract concept which can be applied to any object. Pairs of objects can be seen to be a 'form' of the abstract idea (the 'singularity') which is the number 2.
The archetypal intuitions of singularity and of the infinite are naturally united. The singularity 2 is the totality of all manifestations of duality, of which there are infinitely many. Any meaningful infinity (i.e. not arbitrary and so disposed to a semantic unification) arises in a likewise manner as a singularity. Infinity is then understood as a totality.
The set of natural numbers (the set {0,1,2,...}) is the ontological totality of natural numbers. From the following discussion it is understood the set is prior to the individual numbers. Any such totality is conceived as a singularity; in this case as the singularity of natural numbers, of which its forms are the natural numbers. More generally, any abstract structure (in particular mathematical structures) can be conceived as a singularity.
A last important example: there is a singularity of physical reality. We can consider each physical object as being a form of this abstract singularity of a physical object. We live in three-dimensional space (ignoring time), and so each object can really be considered as a form within this space. The singularity is thus three-dimensional space.
Now that the reader is acquainted with an understanding of the singularity-form archetypes, we speak of ontological hierarchies. A form is ontologically contained in its singularity; its singularity may be conceived as a form contained in a higher singularity, giving rise to a chain of singularities. This is what we mean by a hierarchy. If singularities and forms are understood as archetypal intuitions which we use to name, and hence obtain an understanding of reality, then it follows naturally that a singularity is said to have a higher state of being than its form. We hence naturally obtain ontological hierarchies. One such example could be: being, physical objects, a tree, an oak tree, the oak tree in the park (where each name is understood as a singularity). [Read more here, and then here]
Conception and Perception
I spoke of singularities of singularities. For this to make sense we need a method to go between the two. Well, we have that method, it is what we have been using implicitly throughout. Conception is to generalise a form to singularity, perception is to identify as particular form a singularity. [Read more]
A perception of the singularity 2 is a particular pair of objects; the conception of a form of 2 (a particular pair of objects) is the singularity 2. Perception and conception are archetypes of thought that allow movement between a singularity-form pair.
Any element of cognition can be conceived in itself; more precisely this is to say that it can be conceived as a form of a singularity. But note that there are many possible singularities it may be conceived as; for example, a tree can be conceived as the singularity of trees, or as the singularity of organisms, or physical objects, or even beings.
The singularity-form hierarchy should not be imagined as a static linear hierarchy; rather it is a dynamic movement, the locus of being orbiting, and perfectly ordered by, its centre. From the centre are branched hierarchies as paths of perception; these paths are moulded by the consciousness in a manifold multiplicity of ways.
The Self
Consider a space of points. To assign any point a position is to delineate its position in relation to another point commonly taken to be the origin - the 0 point. Analogously, to know any conceived being, is to know it in relation to another conceived being. This is the necessity of an ontological centre: an archetypal intuition serving as the base point of knowledge, from whose perspective all knowledge is known.
And what may we take to be our centre of though? If philosophy is understood to be the love of wisdom, the striving towards truth - the perfect vision of reality as it is - then the ontological centre of thought must be the conception in which we rest our most certain intuition. Now, I do not boast knowledge in terms absolute beyond my own being; for I am, of course, inextricably bound to my own being. But I believe there to be a universality in my arguments, and perhaps the reader will agree with me.
Knowledge is known through the knower. In this the knower must be prior to knowledge itself. All knowledge is known in thought; and to conceive of thought is to conceive of a field of thought: the mind. In the most general terms, our being is our awareness: to conceive of awareness it to conceive of a field of awareness in its totality, a single conception in which awareness is united. This single conception is the one who is aware: the self.
The conception of the self is thus the highest abstraction, the most absolute conception. In each conception is implicit the conception of the self. The self is the ontological centre of thought that we sought; and knowledge of the self is the most certain knowledge.
Knowledge cannot proceed from nothing: there must be a central pillar of thought, an absolute maxim and principle that we swear by as the highest certainty of our knowledge. This principle, for myself at least, is the statement that 'the whole is greater than the part'. In fact, to unite this discussion with the previous, I claim that conception of the singularity-form archetypes is equivalent to conception of the self, and thus that both intuitions serve as the ontological centre of thought. Clearly if one accepts the singularity-form archetypes, then we can conceive of a totality of elements of awareness; this singularity of awareness is the self. And if one accepts the self as a rightful conception, then it follows that all thought is united in one absolute totality. In this totality is implicit the essence of unity (for unity is required to conceive of many things as one), and thus the singularity-form archetypes.
In summary, we stated the need for an ontological centre in any endeavour, and one for thought in particular; and we said that the ontological centre for thought must be the conception we know in the most surety and certainty. This first conception is the self, the 'I' that unites the extension of one's being in a single identity. We then explained the equivalence of the singularity-form archetypes and the notion of the self. The course of philosophy is then to be understood as the introspective wisdom of selfhood.
Read more on the self here, and about the will here. Thoughts on the ego and knowledge are found here.
Section II: Metaphysics
In which we study our knowledge of Being in contemplating the nature of language and reality.
Metaphysics
Recall that ontology was defined as the study of being, and metaphysics as the study of reality in the most abstract terms. The category of being is the broadest and most abstract category: any word can be predicated to be.
The word 'being' is the most abstract word, standing highest and lofty above all others. Every other word and meaningful conception of language is then naturally understood to be a naming of the distinct dimensions of being. Language is the naming of reality, and the naming of reality is a division of the one into the many. But this matches perfectly the program of metaphysics. To summarise, we have used the analogy of language as being a system of names divided from unity to explain the relation of ontology to metaphysics: ontology is to the base meanings of language, and metaphysics to the system of naming that follows.
We can now define more precisely ontology as the study of the archetypes of intuition, to be understood as knowledge of the singularity-form archetypes; metaphysics is then the application of these archetypal intuitions to a knowledge of reality by division. Ontology is as the whole, a plurality of parts united in unity; and metaphysics is as the division of the whole into parts.
Ontology is a first philosophy, an establishing of the most certain archetypes and intuitions from which thought will follow; metaphysics is then that proceeding stream of thought, whose torrent flows through the mind illuminating the depths of mystery in highest abstraction, and then flows back upon itself so that the action of the first principles is put to light, and subject to criticism. This is the dynamic unfolding of philosophy, whose each course processes in orbit through the mind, each orbit bringing the mind closer to itself in understanding.
Language and Reality
The relation of ontology and metaphysics to meaning and language is more than an analogy. Analogies themselves are embodiments of the metaphysical reflections of the higher in the lower. Below is summarised the relation of language and reality.
Ontology <------> Meaning
| |
Metaphysics <------> Language
Language, as we stated before, is the naming of reality. The elements of language are words; words are names we give to the conceived aspects of reality: beings. In speaking of words, we refer only to those with semantic meaning, that is, structural words such as 'a', 'the', 'is', etc. are excluded - these words serve only to form grammatical structure. Some do have logical significance however, which we will study later.
In ontology we sometimes speak of an outward dimension and inward dimension to a being. For example, the outward dimension to a human is their physical form, their inward dimension is their soul. The outward dimension of an artwork is its physical manifestation, its inward dimension is the idea and meaning the artist sought to convey. In the case of language, the outward dimension of a word is the word conceived as an element of language, the inward dimension is the meaning behind the word. It is important to note that by language we mean something more abstract than the spoken word; the names we speak of are the outward dimensions to the inward meaning, the inward meaning is universal in essence, but the outward can take many forms. The spoken is word is one of them, so is writing, but it can even be music, or art, or emotion, or ideas. So by language we mean to speak of something universal to the human experience, something present in all people, we mean to refer to the very thought structure through which being is conceptualised.
The essence of a word is its meaning. Language revolves around a sentence structure of subject-predicate; a subject is an individual being, either abstract or concrete, a predicate is a mode of being attributed to the subject. From this classification of words I hope it is easy to see that any word represents a singularity. Note that we can conceive of singularities of properties, for example redness or quickness; and note that any individual being can be conceived as a singularity in itself, for example a particular person, of which the forms are the possible modes of being in which the individual may partake. Now we may identify the meaning or reality of a word with the singularity that it represents. In this regard we may speak of the ontology of a word to refer to its meaning.
So the elements of language are words, and words represent singularities. Language is then the outward locus generated by the conceived elements; the words are as the stars in the night sky, and language as the manifest multiplicity of constellations and geometric relationships that can be envisaged in the heavens above. Words are the generators of language, language is the structural locus generated by the combination of words.
It was stated that language is a naming of reality. We must justify that any statement of language is a name. Clearly any subject or predicate is a name, a subject-predicate is then a relationship between singularities. As an example, consider the sentence 'the sky is blue'. The sentence relates the singularity 'sky' and the singularity 'blue'. The sentence can either be thought of as conceiving 'sky' as a form of 'blue', or 'blue' as a form of 'sky'. Generalising this example, it can be seen that any statement of language can be understood through the singularity-form archetypes, and is hence a name of an order of affairs. This order of affairs can be conceived as a singularity in itself; for example, to conceive the sentence 'the sky is blue' as a singularity, is to conceive of all worlds of being in which the sky is blue. So any statement of language has been identified with a singularity of worlds of being. Read more about worlds of being here.
Ontology is the study of unity: of wholes and their parts. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of division of unity into plurality.
Meaning is the ontology, the inward essence, behind a word; language is the outward conceptualisation of reality through them. Reality can be named by the word 'being'; language is then the division of the word 'being' into 'beings'. This division is not just of singularity to form, but of the forms conceived as their own singularities and divided henceforth, in the multifarious paths of division and classification from unity.
In the identification of ontology and meaning as one, it follows that language and metaphysics are one also. As stated before, by language we do not envisage merely a system of communication, but we mean to refer to the thought-structure through which reality is perceived. From the identification of meaning and ontology, and from our previous comment that the program of metaphysics and language are one, it follows naturally that metaphysics and language should be identified too. This completes our establishing of the relational square stated at the beginning.
The core argument of this section can be summarised as follows. From our conception of reality emerges language as our naming of reality; and the essence of our naming of reality, its meaning, is our conception of reality. So language, and our conception of reality - metaphysics, are one.
It then follows that the singularity-form cosmos, a hierarchical plurality emanating from unity, is identified with language. The word and the being are conceived as being the same. From previous discussions we made clear that the singularity-form cosmos contains all possible thought and experience, and that the mind is defined as their totality, thus the singularity-form cosmos and the mind are one. The world is our conception of it, and our conception of the world is in language; the world is its word.
Logic
Logic is the ontological extension of a concept, a derivation of its ontological consequences. Logic is the mind unveiling that which is implicit in an explicit conception.
Each singularity admits a logic in its extension to form. For example the singularity 'nature' admits a logic deriving all its forms: natural beings; this logic can be envisaged as some sort of classification and ordering of natural beings. The logic of a singularity is not just perception of the conception, but it is perception in the light of the singularity of being, and all that it entails.
Language is a logic of meaning. It is the generation of more complex meanings from simple archetypes. The mind can intuit in wordless clarity the meanings: 'sky', 'clear', 'blue', 'today'. The sentence 'the sky is a clear blue today' is a meaning that is slightly more difficult to intuit without words. The sentence embodies the singularity of worlds of being as described; this singularity is fainter than the others, arising from a path of conception from their unities outward towards the peripheries of the mind. The existence of the outer singularities, of the compound meanings, was implicitly present in those words as elements of meaning; bringing those implicit consequences out explicitly is logic.
The purpose of language is that there are singularities which we can intuitively know, but which can be difficult to name in precision, certain experiences for example. Language is as a logic allowing us to access the outer peripheries of the mind through the naming of more complex compound beings through the simpler ones.
An important example of this is mathematics. Mathematics can be thought of as abstract language, that is, language abstracted away from the direct realities of experience, towards ideas. One such idea we introduced early on was that of number. The program of mathematics is to begin with first principles, definitions and axioms, and then to derive their logical consequences. The definitions are names for abstract beings, beheld by the mind through intuition, and the axioms are the abstract relationships involving them. Through this we can describe a theory, for example one of arithmetic, or set theory, or group theory, and so on. The theory can then be worked out through logical reasoning. Note that the creation of these theories, and so the overwhelming pursuit of mathematics, is a creative expression, not a mechanistic logical deduction.
The traditional definition of logic is as a science of reasoning. Interpreted within our framework, we refer to this as a logic of thought: a logic of the archetypes of thinking. A more modern definition of logic can be conceived in mathematics, in the study of abstract systems of logic such as the propositional or predicate calculus. Mathematical logic can be thought of as an algebra of logical symbols and structures (which can be conceived as symbols in their own right). In this, mathematical logic is very clearly a mathematical discipline, and so can be treated under the previous paragraph. But traditional, or classical, logic is something prior to mathematics. It is the study of the intuitions of reasoning which we take as axioms before embarking upon any study, mathematics included. This definition of logic clearly partakes as philosophy, in particular matches our definition of ontology.
The laws of thought explicated in the axioms of logic follow from our meditations on ontology. Classical logic conceives of three:
1. Law of identity: Whatever is, is. A being conceived is meaningful in that it is truly the being that has been conceived. See the Fundamental Ontology.
2. Law of non-contradiction: Nothing can both be and not be. A being cannot both be and not be a form of a singularity. That is, the singularity concept is meaningful - see the Fundamental Ontology.
3. Law of excluded middle: Everything either is, or is not. A being is either a form of a singularity or it is not. See the Fundamental Duality.
These will be made clear in the next section.
Metaphysics: Ontological Logic
From our previous identifications, it follows that metaphysics is a logic of ontology. If ontology is thought of as the study of the archetypes of thought in unity, metaphysics is then the application of these archetypes to the naming of reality in division. Metaphysics is this logic of division, an ontological logic.
In the identification of language and reality, every statement of language may be thought of as a metaphysical statement in that it is a naming of an order of being, and so is knowledge of reality. But by metaphysics we mean to study the nature of this naming, rather than a particular naming in itself, which should be left to the specialist science. For example the science of biology is concerned with the naming of the reality of biological beings. We can envisage a hierarchy of sciences, each successively opening the mind to a higher vision, evolving its knowledge of reality to the more abstract and real, culminating in the beatific vision of perfect oneness and unity: truth.
Metaphysics, or ontological logic, is then the study of the naming of reality in the most abstract sense. Ontology is the study of the singularity-form archetypes, and metaphysics of the hierarchy. The hierarchy, as we have already mentioned, is not a static, linear hierarchy, but a cosmos multifarious. A being may be conceived as a form of many different singularities, a singularity itself can be conceived in different ways, with different forms.
The human endeavour of language is fallible; in striving to name the complexity of being, contradictions and inconsistencies can arise in our attempts, in which case we must review and reconsider our knowledge. This leads to a reformation, or rather an evolution, of language. Consider how earth, air, water, and fire, were once considered the four fundamental elements constituting reality, but now all these terms have acquired new meanings, more appropriate to our current knowledge.
In ontology we introduced archetypes of thought, argued as the first and most fundamental conceptions, through which reality is perceived. The purpose of ontological logic is now to consolidate our intuitions in the abstract language we have developed by way of meta-theorems.
Reflection Principle: The meaning of a singularity is present in the meaning of a form.
For example, there is a singularity of beauty, the forms of which are those beautiful things. The reflection principle in this case is that a beautiful form is truly beautiful.
Fundamental Duality: The existence of a singularity necessitates the existence of its respective forms, and vice versa.
If we have conceived of a singularity, then clearly we have conceived of its forms. And a form can only be conceived of as a form of a singularity.
Fundamental Equivalence: The conception of a perception of a singularity equates to the higher singularity.
This is the mechanism by which meaning is endowed to perceptions. If the eye beholds a tree in a field, then the mind conceives the singularity of a tree, and thus the idea of a tree is ascribed to the image. The tree in the field is a perception, and it is conceived to the singularity of a tree by the fundamental equivalence.
Read more here; a more refined account is present here.
Fundamental Ontology: We can conceive of singularity; in other words, the singularity archetype is meaningful in language.
This is the crown-piece of all our work; understanding this is the key that opens the mind to an understanding of all philosophy. First recall that singularity ordains meaning to its forms. The fundamental ontology states that singularity can be conceived in singularity, and thus, singularity is intrinsically meaningful. The conception of singularity is the first conception; so by the fundamental ontology the first conception, the centre of the singularity-form hierarchy, is meaningful, and from this language and reality acquire meaning. The fundamental ontology is the centre and font of philosophy, it is the culmination of metaphysics and ontology in one single idea.
The theorem can be strengthened to 'we can conceive of the singularity of conception'. This understanding should follow naturally from an understanding of the version stated. This version is in some sense more suggestive of the progression of ideas that will follow.
It is important to note that the fundamental ontology is a statement of language and metaphysics, it supposes the first conception beforehand. The fundamental ontology is just to say that the first conception contains itself, and so the singularity-form hierarchy of being is meaningful in itself.
These meta-theorems are the basics of ontological logic, they explain the metaphysics of language. Ontological logic is as a meta-language, a language turning upon itself to realise its own ontological foundations. The program of metaphysics can be continued with a study of how grammar relates to the structure, and our perception of, reality. There are elsewhere detailed first thoughts on ontological logic and its applications.
Metaphysics of Awareness
Being is the primordial absolute category: all can be predicated to be. In this being is the first singularity. But we have argued that the self is also the first conception, also the first singularity. Now consider also the category of awareness. Any being is conceived, and so any being we are aware of; alternatively, to understand this, note that it is preposterous to consider something we are not aware of, for such a thing is not meaningful, and so anything considered is considered in the manifold of awareness. So awareness is also the first singularity.
This is the metaphysics of awareness: the self, being, and awareness, are one. All is the self, and the self is all. To a materialist, such a statement is asinine. But materialism conceives reality, and all being, as being essentially material. The self is conceived as a purely material entity: a part of the material universe. In our philosophy, material reality is a dim fading of being into corporal dust - though still a profound universe in itself, a universe far encompassing the universe of our perception in its potentiality; but far more profound is reality at large. All reality is unified by our consciousness, by our being aware of it. If one accepts the singularity-form archetypes as meaningful, then it is a natural consequence that he who conceives of that through which being is conceived, is being itself.
We encompass reality in our awareness, and reality is defined as the recipient of our awareness; thus reality is our awareness of it. All is awareness.
[Read more]
Section III: The Self and Experience
In which we study our experience of Being through meditation upon selfhood and the nature of the Soul.
Meaning and The Leap of Faith
By the singularity-form archetypes we should intuit an understanding of reality as a hierarchy of singularities, each succeeding each other in progressive abstraction and unity, intertwined and interwoven in infinitely many ways, accounting for the infinitely many paths of perception from the centre to the peripheries. Singularity ordains meaning to its forms; so if a higher singularity is meaningful, then the hierarchy it admits must be meaningful.
But the hierarchy itself must emanate from the conception of singularity, for all can be conceived as singularity, and all singularity can be conceived in singularity. And as we said, singularity is meaningful, so all is meaningful. The converse is also true, that if one accepts something meaningful, then the conceived meaning can be conceived as a singularity. And in this conception, as the fundamental ontology shows, is the essence of singularity. Thus meaning and the archetype of singularity are equated.
One can either believe all is not meaningful, or that there is something that is meaningful. But we just showed that to accept something as meaningful is to accept the singularity archetype, and thus conception, and thus all things as meaningful.
Hence, all is meaningful, or all is not meaningful. In this dichotomy the essence of philosophy, and of all knowledge, is reduced to the primordial question incarnate in the leap of faith: that I believe in something meaningful. And truly one must believe in something meaningful; for to strive for love, beauty, truth, honour, duty, or the other facets of virtue, is to believe in them as meaningful and real. And if one strives for their completion in life, but does not believe, then he is a hypocrite, and the works of his life are in his eyes nought.
The Greater
There are conceived many first singularities, but these first conceptions must be one in their meaning. These first conceptions are hence names of an underlying unity. This unity is understood as follows. Being encompasses itself in being, the self encompasses herself in selfhood, and awareness is aware of awareness. More abstractly, the conception of singularity is itself a singularity (the fundamental ontology); and the concept of singularity is clearly too the first singularity. Those first singularities are the conceptions contained in themselves; and in this meditation of unity unto itself, is multiplicity awoken.
Pulsating in the passages of philosophy, an archetype of self-conception emerges. By this, I mean to refer to a recurrent theme of conceptions that can be predicated unto themselves, otherwise termed as 'self-reference'; for example: singularities of singularities, conception of conception, awareness of awareness. Such conceptions are the first singularities: they are contained in themselves. In containing themselves, the first singularities contain all being.
The intuitions that engender ontology are guided by the primordial yearning to the archetype of the greater. Each form is conceived in an ontologically greater singularity, and that singularity conceived again, progressing infinitely upwards towards the ontological centre. That ontological centre is an embodiment of that archetype. The archetype must itself contain the greater, and so be greater to itself; the conception of that archetype is the ontologically greatest conception: the first singularity. This explains the archetype of self-conception present in the first singularity.
A more mystical and contemplative understanding of philosophy emerges. Language and reality have been identified as one, being as the living manifestation of the word, an outward projection of the intellect. The plurality of existence has been conceived in one unity known by many names: being, awareness, the self. In all, an 'I' emerges at the centre, a self transcendent and omniscient beyond the materialisation of the ego, an identity uniting the totality of our experience, thought, and being. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, it is the yearning to the greater, the self striving towards itself.
The Soul
Being is now conceived as a Singularity-Form cosmos: a hierarchical structure that is the skeleton of reality in its ontological essence, and whose breath and life is the dynamic unfolding of the flesh of experience. The self, whose highest and truest essence is said to be the Soul, has been equated with the Singularity-Form hierarchy. The Soul is the first singularity from which the hierarchy of being is derived; and the hierarchy itself is contained in that singularity. That the Soul is one the point at the centre of the locus of being, and also the locus of being is contained in that point, is the mystery that the gnostic strives to intimate. This mystery in the ages of mankind has known many names and expressions, but one recurring parable is of the drop and the ocean.
Knowledge
Knowledge is our awareness of being. This awareness is not one of speech; for words are easy on the tongue, but heavy on the heart. The awareness that I speak of is an experience of the reality of a word, what we may call awareness of its inward dimension. Philosophising of the singularity-form hierarchy and being is the outward dimension of this knowledge, the inward dimension is the experience of that reality; this experience is spirituality.
We should make clear that the experience we speak of is not necessarily one of the senses. In fact, sensuous experience is of the weakest kind: the senses can be doubted, often our senses lead us astray, for example we perchance believe we heard something and found it was not there. To experience a reality in the sense we mean is to be one with it.
Truth is the reality, or meaning, behind a statement. The truth behind 'the sky is blue' is the singularity of the worlds of being in which the sky is blue. The statement 'a triangle has four sides' has no truth; for there are no worlds of being in which a triangle has four sides (by definition).
Read more about truth here. A false statement, or an inconsistent theory, can be said to have world of being nothing, or in mathematical vocabulary sometimes conceptualised as the empty set. Nothing can be thought to be ontologically equivalent to everything, and so the names of nothingness names of being. For this reason I think it is unhelpful to conceive of nothing as a singularity: I would rather think of a false or inconsistent statement as having no inward dimension, and so being of symbols only.
The 'I' that we identify ourselves with is a small shadow of the depth of profundity that the Soul embodies. To conceive ourselves as being a material entity, in a cold, lifeless universe, is to identify ourselves with a self that is a dim, faded reality of the true self.
The self that we identify ourselves with is a sphere of awareness in the singularity-form hierarchy. The darkness of our ignorance is the ego. To be aware only of the material reality, is to be blind to an infinity at large, that pervades behind the fabric of our perception. The ego here is strong. To be aware only of our direct surroundings, of material reality as sensuously experienced, is an ego even stronger.
To rise in knowledge is to liberate the self from the tyranny of the ego; it is to vanquish the darkness of ignorance with the light of awareness.
The names of being obtained from logic and reasoning are the outward dimension of knowledge; their inward dimension is the experience of their reality. For example, we can obtain mathematical knowledge through logical reasoning, through a manipulation of symbols by logical rules to obtain a new theorem. If one has no knowledge of the meaning behind these symbols, then that knowledge is mute, and the discovery itself meaningless. This is what language outwardly is, mere symbols; the identification of language and reality cannot be one on this outward level alone, the identification is one in which words and being are inwardly united in experience. A mathematical truth is truly known when it is experienced, when its outward form as a logical statement is understood, alongside the inward intuition upon which it overlays.
And so it is with all pursuits and activities of knowledge. Seek not words, seek not outward forms, but seek their true manifestation as something real, and know that this seeking is only satisfied in experience.
[Read more]
Will and Striving
The Soul as the transcendent 'I' is the essence that births the first conception, and from the first conception is born the world.
We define will as the ontological necessity of singularity to form, and striving as the necessity of form to singularity. Singularity wills form, and form strives to its singularity. Will and striving are spiritual archetypes, they are of the living essence of the Soul, and they as thoughts occur in the mind through meditation of the Spirit. In this, being as the singularity-form hierarchy is the will of the soul - the first and total singularity, and being strives to that point of unity. This is the unity of the Soul and Being: the Soul is the meaning and essence underlying Being, and Being is the outward manifestation and revelation of the Soul.
Idealism
The ideals are those conceptions through which being can be perceived, they are the first conceptions. Ideals are the absolute categories, which can be predicated to the totality of being; in this they are names for the totality of being, the Soul.
Ideals are not reasoned through logic; for, as we said, logic is an ontological extension of singularity, so ideals as the first singularities cannot be obtained through ontological extension. Knowledge of ideals is the peak of mystical experience; theirs is the highest knowledge. If a name of a part of being is a light, then ideals as names of being are the sun. Ideals are known through the deepest form of knowledge known as gnosis.
Some Ideals already mentioned are being, awareness, the self, and the Soul. They are ontologically equivalent as first singularities, but each symbolises its own psychological dimension and intuition. I also believe love, beauty, the good, and truth, to be ideals: all is love, all is beauty, all is goodness, all is truth. The reality behind such statements cannot be reasoned; they are not the subject of philosophy, but of spirituality.
In a moment of totality, the entirety of being may be conceived in an ideal. For example, in witnessing a sunset, or listening to music, one may experience the very essence of beauty, and in that experience, experience all being as beautiful. This experience is knowledge of being, it is an expanding and elevating of the consciousness to the breadth of the Soul. As such, evil cannot be an ideal; for evil is ignorance, a degradation of consciousness and expansion of the ego; evil is that which blinds us to the unity of being.
The Soul is one, but its names are many. In this, the unity of the Soul arises the plurality of the names. This is the archetype of unity and plurality realised, from which is manifested the order of being. The Soul can be conceived as the totality of its names; its names are then the principle singularities that engender the locus of Being. The names of the Soul are the metaphysical elements of Being: each conception is a faded perception of an amalgam of the names. Each being can be conceived as a form of beauty, or as a manifestation of perfect order, or a harbinger of love, and in the other named and unnamed jewels of experience. Being is the locus of manifestation of the names of the Soul, and the Soul is the unity of the names.
[Read more]
Morality
One's knowledge, or awareness of being, gives rise to a station of existence. The greater in knowledge one is, the higher their station.
Goodness is that which leads to a higher station of existence, to greater knowledge; and evil is that which degrades the self into ignorance, and hence lowers their station. There is an ideal of goodness: the first singularity in which being may be conceived. The meditation of this ideal is found in the striving to perfect and virtuous character.
Read more about good and evil. The essence of morality is found in intention, the inward dimension, not in the means of action, the outward dimension.
Section IV: Theology
In which we study Absolute Being:the Divine.
Spirituality
Spirituality is the experience, or knowledge, of spiritual truths. Spiritual truths are those truths pertaining to the reality of the Soul. Thus, in spirituality is knowledge of the Ideals found. One can imagine that there are infinitely many Ideals: infinitely many facets through which reality can be experienced. If the Soul is thought of as light, then the ideals are the colours of the spectrum through which the world can be seen. Spirituality is the self experiencing itself; in totality, not in part.
Spirituality is the inward dimension of every religion and philosophy. Each path of knowledge calls upon the individual to unite with the higher truth; a path of practice and a way of life is laid out upon which the individual must embark. This is the outward dimension; the inner is accessed through the outer, and so the outer should not be neglected; but to remain on the level of the outer, never looking inward, is the worst tragedy for the Soul to suffer.
The highest name that philosophy bears the eye of the mind to see, are the names of the self. The most intimate of these names, and the most personal reality, is the Soul. But to name the Soul is not the end of contemplation; rather, it is the beginning of true life.
The purpose of life is found in its meaning, and the meaning of life is found in its inward essence, and that inward essence is the self, the Soul. The meaning of life is to know the Soul: to know oneself.
The One
As the Soul yearns for the greater, form strives to singularity. To each conception there is a greater conception, to each singularity one higher. But the first singularity, the Soul, conceives itself, and in conceiving itself conceives the totality of being. The meaning and reality of a form is given by its singularity; in conceiving of the Soul as the first conception, the first conception conceives itself, and so ordains meaning to itself . From this arises the singularity-form hierarchy of Being as meaningful. To note here is that we begin with the Soul as the first conception.
All philosophy is implicit upon the first conception of the 'I', the Soul; all philosophy is implicit upon self-awareness. The domain of philosophy is to make the implicit explicit, and thus to raise oneself on a path of knowledge, elevating the vision to the greater heights, and beckoning their contemplation, as to realise the truth of the Soul. But whence does the Soul arise? This can be phrased in a different question, one that has been treated as the inception of theology: Who am I? To be aware of oneself is to inevitably question one's own existence.
This question is the Soul's yearning to the greater, a yearning to a unity greater than oneself, a unity in which to find eternal abode in perfect oneness. This unity is not one that can be conceived of in the cosmos of the Soul, but is one transcendent to conception, beyond all name. The greater unity is the The One who is one in his inconceivability, utterly beyond conception; He is the oneness from which the Soul arises, and as the Soul, the world. He is the Divine, God.
The Soul is the centre of Being: the first singularity whose plurality is the world, and whose unity contains that plurality. The One is the mystery that is the essence of the Soul, the Absolute Being that underlies Being, the primordial essence upon which the Soul and singularity-form cosmos are imprinted.
The meaning of a name is its singularity. In speaking of The One we name Him; but we just said that He is the one that cannot be conceived. In his inconceivability is his essence, is our knowledge of Him. To understanding this, remember that the Soul is the meaning of the world, the first singularity; the Soul in conceiving of itself ordains meaning to itself, and so to the world. But for the Soul to be meaningful requires a 'meaning', a 'reality', beyond itself. A reality beyond itself cannot be conceptualised in itself. This is the paradox of the greater; that to name a greater than the self is to conceive of the greater, but then it cannot be the greater, and so the greater cannot be named - but this is to name it: that it cannot be named or conceived.
All Being pulsates in a rhythm to the greater; each existence is drawn forth from the highest spheres of conception to radiate itself in descending melody, until it touches the outer reaches of deepest percipience. The lower reflects the greater, the changing reflects the unchanging, worlds their cosmic apex. Being is a reflection of that beyond Being, awareness of that beyond awareness, knowledge of the unknowable. This reflection is what the archetype of the greater symbolises, and this reflection is the essence of reality; all is a reflection of its higher. So the Soul in its highest name must reflect a name greater, a name beyond name, a conception beyond conception. God is beyond name; but in each name God is known in reflection, as The One greater than what is named.
The only conception beyond oneself is the inconceivable, the mystery. The mystery is not given by name, but by experience. Our experience of the world is its reality, its ontology; and ontology rests upon the archetype of the greater. Our experience of the world is then a manifestation, a revelation, of this archetype. To experience, is to experience Being, and to experience Being to experience the greater, and to experience the greater, to experience God. The Soul is the revelation and witness of God.
God is the Absolute, and the Soul is his reflection; man is an image of God. God as the inconceivable answers the archetype of the greater; in conceiving the inconceivable is born the first conception of the Soul.
[Read more]
Theology
The purpose of theology is not to philosophise God, for God being beyond conception, is beyond philosophy. The purpose of theology is first to illumine the mind with the light of the inconceivable, and then to open the heart to the mystery, that in man's inability to comprehend God, is his ability to comprehend Him.
The reader should ask: why embark on the passage of philosophy, to illumine the nature of being in language, to then end philosophy with that beyond language? But in asking this the reader answers his own question: we seek that beyond language, beyond the self.
It is erroneous and futile to seek a philosophy of that beyond the self, for it falls to meaninglessness. To conceive and argue of God in logic, to reason of his properties and of his essence, is to argue not of God at all; for God is not conceivable. God is not known in the words of language, but in the mystery of the heart; God is known when he is experienced, and this experience is beyond articulation.
The Names of God
God is beyond name, yet he is named. God is named as He beyond the Soul, as the inconceivable unity that creates the first conception in His image. Metaphysical language, and the study of theology, is a reflection of the reality of experience. The Soul is a reflection of God. While God is beyond name, all names arise from Him; and the greatest of these names, the names of the Soul, are reflections of his Absolute Names, as the Soul is a reflection of his Absolute Being.
Thus the Names of God are the Absolute names of the Ideals. God is the Absolute Unity, the Absolute Soul, He is Absolute Love, Absolute Beauty, He is the Absolute Good. The Ideals are names of the Soul, the first conceptions whose reality is beyond conception, is in the inconceivable, is God.
Thus the Ideals are manifestations of God, they are his Word. They are, as we said, the principle singularities that engender Being as a locus of manifestation. The Soul is the Word of God, his revelation, we are His witness. Reality understood as language, is that revelation, a light dispersed from the drop of the Soul, in the ocean of Being.
Section V: Unity
In which we study the unity of Being in oneself.
Mysticism
What is the world? One could say the Soul. The purpose of the previous section was to answer: What is the Soul? God. God is the inconceivable, the Absolute Unity that is the transcendent greater to the Soul, from which the first conception of the Soul arises. The Soul is an image of God, a reflection of his oneness.
We said that the Soul is the Word of God, and Being is the locus of manifestation engendered by the Word. The Soul as the Word is a revelation of the oneness of God.
God is the greatest as the inconceivable, beyond all conception; the greatest necessitates that to which it must be greater. God is the Absolute Unity from which the unity of the Soul arises; unity necessitates plurality that it unites. God is the Absolute Name of the Ideals, the seeds from which the order of Being flourishes; an Absolute Name necessitates an order of conceivable manifestation of which it is the Absolute.
God necessitates the Soul into Being, and the Soul necessitates God. In this, God is the creator, and the Soul is his creation. The mystery of God necessitates a mystic to know that mystery; this is the relationship of man and God.
Philosophy culminates in spirituality; spirituality is mysticism. Mysticism is to be one with the Soul; for to be one with the Soul, is to be one with God.
The Life of Man
The life of man is a world of being perceived in the vast order of the cosmos, a world of being in which the self is perceived as a corporal being alone in a lonely universe, a fractured consciousness separated from unity. But remember that unity necessitates plurality, and the Soul necessitates a multiplicity in which to manifest itself. That multiplicity is the field consciousness wonders, it is the life of man.
We were separated, cloven asunder from unity, in this life, so to find once again oneness. Being is the Soul conceiving itself; that self-knowledge of the Soul is this life, and all life. The purpose of our lives is to raise the mind from fragmented multiplicity to the vision of oneness, and so to realise the Soul upon itself.
The Soul wills Being, and then strives towards itself. The will of the Soul is a reflection of the Divine Will, and the Soul striving to itself reflects the striving to God.
Revelation
The Soul, and hence Being, are revelations of God. God manifests himself in the Soul, and in Being, so to know himself. God is a hidden mystery, an inconceivable unity, that willed into being the mirror of the Soul, willed plurality from unity, so to reveal Himself to Himself; and we are that revelation.
The Unity of Being
The purpose of philosophy as the love of wisdom was this: to know the truth of the unity of being.
Man is a solitary wayfarer on this lonely Earth, itself a speck in the dark ocean of the universe. He is tempted by the sights and illusions of the world around him, always seeking that beyond seeking, striving for something he does not know.
He suffers at the hands of world, and in an abode of misery and suffering, he turns his gaze upwards, seeking respite in the remorseful gaze of the starry heavens. His mind illumined with the light of knowledge, his consciousness opened to abstraction, he now journeys in himself on the path of knowledge; and in this his journeys in the world find new meaning.
Graced by the openings of wisdom, a lover of knowledge sees a world of being in every particle of existence; he sees wonder, he sees beauty, he experiences an order and purpose in his life, he is love, he is joy, and he has found the paradise in his heart.
In his deepest spiritual meditations, he knows that what he always sought was the greater, and what he thought he sought was not that; for now knowing his worth he knows himself to be greater than the forms around him. He knows the greater is to himself, and yearns for in the inconceivable in his comprehension. The mystery sears his consciousness, purifying him of all that he supposed; in the silence of his heart, he hears the whisper of revelation, and is sighted with the beatific vision of God upon the Throne of Being.
Now one in himself, he seeks oneness in God; for this he seeks a life of devotion and righteousness, striving to his primordial yearning. Know that God is not sought, for that which is sought is that which is separate from oneself; as soon as you know this truth of the unity of being, you are one with the reality you seek.
We are lost in a black ocean,
Under a vast starlit motion,
Drowning under endless waves,
Of suffering we are broken slaves.
But if only understanding gave us vision clearer,
That we would understand darkness is a mirror,
Yearning is the aphotic night,
For the soul to inscribe upon it light.
The life of man is a revelation,
Of the beauty of creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment