www.panentheism.com

	The War & Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception : Book 1 Resolving Paradoxes of the Distant Past - An Alien Conversation Tractate 4 : The Error of Copernicus 1543 AD Copernicus – The Error of: Centrist Systems – a new perception 2000 AD The Error: The paradox of centricism The perception: Copernicus moves our perceptual understanding regarding the system being filled with Centricism into that of being ‘the’ system filled with Centricism and non-Centricism. As such, Centricism and non-Centricism, with the help of Copernicus, now have a location within which they can be found. However, the understanding regarding the role of both centricism and non-centricism as well as the understanding regarding the interrelationship between Centricism and non-Centricism not only remain in a state of confusion but even more disconcerting, the existence of such a interrelationship is not recognized as a significant aspect of the ‘larger’ system. It is this state of confusion which will be specifically addressed within this tractate. Contents: Part I: The Paradox of Centricism and non-Centricism Introduction I Introduction II Pre-Copernican Post-Copernican Copernicus’ paradoxes Part II: Resolving the paradox of Centricism with a new metaphysical perception Centricism A location of centricism A location of non-centricism The dynamics of centricism Stepping ‘out’: into Centricism: Independence Stepping ‘in’: ‘beyond’ Centricism: Independence The dynamics of non-centricism The law of inverse proportionality The ‘location’ of ‘nothingness’: Virgin physicality/’virgin physical life’ Virgin consciousness/’virgin abstract knowing’ Stepping ‘in’ beyond Centricism: Dependency Stepping ‘into’ Centricism: Independence The significance of insignificance: Random Sequencing The explosive nature of the potentiality of knowing Removing a piece of Randomness Boethius’ metaphysical system and why we can now file it away as a part of the annals of history: Archimedean Points Philosophical infinities A bag of marbles is not dependent upon sequential time A unit of knowing is not a marble Terms/concepts ‘fundamental building block’ of the abstract ‘fundamental building block’ of the physical ‘inverse proportionality’ ‘Virgin physicality/’virgin physical life’ Aristotelian Points Centricism Hegel’s ‘open’ dynamic non-Cartesian system Kant’s ‘closed’ dynamic Cartesian system Non-centricism Part I: Creating the paradox of a centrist system Introduction I: With the scientific understanding of the sun being the Cartesian (Aristotle initiated the elementary form of Cartesianism, which might better be termed ‘static Cartesianism’. Although some discussion of ‘static’ Cartesianism will occur in this tractate, a detailed explanation of what the concept means to metaphysics can be found in Tractate 2: The Error of Aristotle.) point of origin, the point (0,0,0) as opposed to the individual being the Cartesian point of origin, the individual was literally put into motion. By moving the concept of the center from being a man, to the center being the sun, Copernicus in essence created the perception of humanity having lost its sense of being the center. Such a perceptual development introduced two concepts into our understanding of the universe. First: we now perceived the universe to have a center, scientifically speaking. Second: Philosophically speaking, we now perceived the universe to be the whole within which ‘a’ center could be ‘found’. Before Copernicus’ revelations, we had philosophically perceived ‘the center’ to be that of ‘knowing’. Pre-Copernicus, we perceived the human id not only ‘representing’ the center of reality but ‘being’ the center of reality. With Copernicus’ observations, humanity lost its concept of being the center and as such, philosophy/reason found itself being moved from the forefront to being place behind science/observation, and eventually being removed from second place in line to being placed third in line. This second transition of moving from second place to third place occurred with the cultural elevation of God/religion via Christianity, Islam, etc to second place. How does Copernicus’ development of Centricism and non-centricism differ from the Aristotelian development of Cartesian and non-Cartesian? The Aristotelian system of Cartesian and non-Cartesian emerged as a static physical system while the Copernican concepts of Centricism and non-Centricism moved the perceived Aristotelian ‘static’ system into a perceived ‘dynamic’ system of movement. With the acceptance of the Copernican system, everything became objects in motion and all motion took place around a center, thus centricism. In fact, with the acceptance of Copernican system, everything became objects of motion centered around the Aristotelian point of origin. The Aristotelian system led to the Copernican system, which was to lead to the Kantian system. This historical evolution was to open up the concept of system to Kant’s dynamic ‘closed’ Cartesian system. Kant’s system would in turn open up the concept of ‘systems’ and allow for the development of Hegel’s suggestion of ‘the’ system being a dynamic ‘open’ non-Cartesian system. The development of both Kant’s and Hegel’s systems in turn created the potential acceptance of a new metaphysical model which was to follow their innovations. The new system model which was to follow Kant’s ‘closed’ dynamic Cartesian system and Hegel’s ‘open’ dynamic non-Cartesian system was a model perceived as a ‘dynamic open non-Cartesian system powered by a dynamic closed Cartesian systems’ or better labeled as ‘being’ being ‘Being’ or more generically speaking, symbiotic panentheism. However, we are moving too rapidly, therefore let’s begin again: Introduction II: Copernicus was not a philosopher but Copernican perceptions immensely influenced philosophical thought. The perception initiated by Copernicus: The system is a location for Centricism as well as for non-Centricism. This perception moved Aristotle’s Cartesian perception from that of being a static system to that of being a dynamic system and in essence introduced the concept of Centricism co-existing with non-Centricism within our universe, within our reality. As we found with Aristotle, scientifically introducing two extremes of a concept may assist the workings of science but it can greatly befuddle our abstractual perceptions of philosophy and religion. To unravel the philosophical and religious riddle introduced through the elevation of the significance of Centricism to that of non-centricism, we must first understand the pre and post scientific perceptions existing before Copernicus’ Centricism was established as a scientific ‘fact’. Pre-Copernican Before Copernicus, the center of existence resided with the individual. One might even suggest that pre-Copernicus, the center of existence resided ‘within’ the individual. The individual was the center of ‘knowing’ since the individual was where ‘knowing’ resided. This is not implying that gods or God were not recognized entities. Rather it suggests that gods and God were perceived to be humanistic in form or at the very least capable of presenting themselves as such. Pre-Copernicus, ‘knowing’ was the center of existence. Zeno acknowledged this with his suggestion that although abstraction might be a separate entity found ‘within’ the universe, it existed as a separate entity nonetheless. Philosophy, religion and science all reinforced each other in terms of the center. Philosophy viewed the individual as the center of reason, the center of knowing. Religion viewed the individual as the center of attention, the arena around which the gods centered their attention. Science viewed the individual as the center of all that exists, the heavenly bodies all revolved around the individual, revolved around ‘knowing’, revolved around awareness. (Q: This paragraph suggests philosophy, science, and religion were equals. Before Copernicus, philosophy did enjoy an independent status apart from religion. However, by the medieval period, philosophy was used to support – and not compete with – religious views. It wasn’t until the emergence of science, as an independent area of study, that philosophy once again regained its independence. At that point – philosophy, religion, and science – all became independent of each other. With this in mind could you explain what you are attempting to imply? A: We have at our disposal three means of developing perceptions. We have science/observation, religion/belief, and philosophy/reason. Each of the three, throughout the unfolding of time, wanes and ebbs in terms of its ‘apparent’ significance one to the other. But in truth each is, uniformly through time, equal to the other in significance and any universally stable perception we develop has no choice but to be confirmed by the three equally. We will never, as individuals or as specie, accept the validity of a metaphysical model if it is a model: We find unsupportable by either direct or indirect observation, interpolation or extrapolation, and induction or deduction. We find to be unbelievable. We find to be unreasonable.) Now it was understood that men did move from place to place. However, it was also presumed by groups of men, that the heavenly bodies revolved around their particular group, revolved around their particular location of ‘home’. Post-Copernican With Copernicus, the center of physical reality began to move outward from the individual. Science/ observation began to seek the center and as the process of seeking the center evolved, the center was found to move ‘outward’, move away from humankind. The understanding regarding ‘where’ the center was ‘located’, moved from being ‘within’ the individual to being… well, we no longer knew where the center was to be found. It was the center we now sought to find. With Copernicus, the sun became the center of the concrete/physical. In spite of the fact that the sun now becomes the center, the concept of ‘the center’ remains and as such, the universe eventually evolves into being the concept with a center via the big bang. Confusion over the centrist perception not only remains in terms of the concrete but the concept of centricism remains in terms of perceptions regarding abstractual concepts. Humankind ‘looks to’ the center of all things: the center of the concrete and the center of all abstraction. Scientifically the center was ‘probably’ ‘out’ there somewhere. The quest for the scientific holy grail became the quest to find the center, the quest to find the primary origin of both the universe and life. The more science looked, the further removed the center became from the individual. In the macroscopic sense the center moved from the center of ‘knowing’ found within the individual to the sun, to the center of the galaxy, to the center of the universe. In the microscopic sense the center moved from the center of ‘knowing’ found within the individual to the cell, to the nucleus of the cell, to the nucleus of the atom, to the quark, to… As the search for the center moved away from abstractual ‘knowing’ and into the physical, science took off as ‘the’ source of knowledge. As the reputation of science being the legitimate tool for finding the ‘center’ increased, the legitimacy of philosophy and religion diminished. The further the center became removed from the individual the more insignificant the individual became. Insignificance was not necessarily increasing in terms of human behavior but insignificance was increasing in terms of humanity’s own perception regarding the rationality of human significance. As time progressed, tolerance and respect due the individual was increasing but tolerance and respect were not increasing due to the increase in the rational understanding regarding why such respect should exist but rather tolerance and respect were increasing based upon the argument: We should tolerate and respect each other because.. ‘Because why?’, was the question and the answers centered around answers such as: Because we say we should. Because we believe we should. Because that is the way I want to be treated. Because God said we should. Because…(Q: Because the foundations of political philosophy were being established during this period, I don’t perceive the process of the "Why" as being a random and unimportant event. I agree that, during this period, we "settled" for different models of cooperation and agreement, rather than a larger metaphysical understanding. However, these earlier "models" did help establish an atmosphere whereby later philosophers could propose more advanced "models’. As such, can you clarify what you mean by ‘random’ and ‘unimportant’ events? A: Metaphysically speaking, no ‘foundation of reason’ was being laid down to rationalize the concept regarding ‘tolerance and respect due the individual’. The understanding of ‘a’ metaphysical model from which a natural emergence of such a perspective would occur had not been laid out for students of philosophy to examine. Granted the emergence of political philosophy was just emerging but that is not the point. Political philosophy is no more a foundation of reason than is religion or science. The foundation for the concept regarding ‘tolerance and respect due the individual’ can be found in science/observation, religion/faith, and philosophy/reason. Philosophy/reason, itself has ‘a’ foundation and that foundation is the most basic, the most primitive, the most primal of foundations. This most primal, most basic of foundation is the understanding of ‘a’ metaphysical system which explains the very fundamental dynamics existing between ourselves as abstractually knowing individuals and what lies beyond the physical itself.) Where were the answers involving the rationality of such behavior? The further we moved the center away from ourselves, the further removed the rationale regarding tolerance, respect, human compassion, abstract hedonism became removed from our understanding these very aspects of human knowing. Our significance became simply a grain of sand in the beach of time as the center of origination moved further and further outward from ourselves. As the center moved further and further away from ourselves, we lost the understanding regarding our significance for our significance became lost in time, space, and perceptual understandings regarding the limitlessness of reality versus Reality. Reality, with an upper case ‘r’ became lost and as such religion and philosophy became confused, humankind became lost and confused. Energy – matter are dualities of the physical universe. Time – distance are dualities of the abstractual universe. Both dualities are dualities of our personal universe. Are they the only forms of physical existence or abstractual existence found within our personal universe? We are not naive enough to believe, with a fair amount of certainty, that this is not the case regarding abstractional concepts found within our personal universe. We are naïve enough to believe, with a fair amount of certainty, that is the case regarding physical concepts found within our personal universe. Why are energy and matter something in which we ‘believe’ regarding the physical but time and distance are not something in which we ‘believe’ regarding the abstract? We believe the physical to be composed of only matter and energy because that is all we can observe/measure at this point in time. We believe the abstract is composed of more than time and distance because there are more than these two ideas of which we are consciously awareness regarding ‘knowing’ itself. One may say, however: We can measure time and distance. That is true, and so it is we may find time and distance to be aspects of the physical, to be innate characteristics of the physical (Q: Can you clarify? A: Up to and through Copernicus, the West, for the most part, ‘believed’ time and space/distance were aspects of the physical. Such perceptions dominated not only scientific thought, but also religious and philosophically thought. With the advent of Kant, however, such philosophical perceptions underwent the same type of traumatic inversion as occurred to science and its concept of Centricism with the advent of Copernicus.), to be aspects unique to the physical rather than aspects of abstractual existence itself. That too, however, is another topic. Are we going to postpone our discussion of such a topic as we have so many others? Yes and no, for we have already touched upon this very idea in both tractates one and two and we will delve into the concept of time and distance within practically every tractate found within Book II of this trilogy. For the time being, however, we must stay on task and examine the concept of Centricism and non-Centricism, which Copernicus has so eloquently placed before us. Copernicus’ paradoxes: First a person’s home, then city, country, continent, planet, sun, and galaxy ‘had a center’, was ‘the’ center. Now it is the origination of the Big Bang, which is the center. The origination of the Big Bang is now the point of origination, the center, we seek to ‘find’. The ‘primal atom’, the point from which our universe began its expansion is what we desperately seek to find as we literally turn our earth into a massive radio telescope. It is the ‘center’ we seek to find as we send huge telescopes into orbit around our little inconspicuous planet. The concept of a center, the concept of ‘a’ point of origination, haunts us because we perceive time to be the one and only true existence. We have no perception of the concept regarding a ‘location’ of timelessness. The only way to eradicate or change the perception we have of ourselves is to change our perception. To be truly a change, such a perceptual shift must metamorphize our present understanding regarding our immense insignificance into becoming an understanding of our phenomenal significance. Such a task is no easy matter. Such a task cannot emerge from science/observation; rather such a metamorphosis must emerge from philosophy/reason and in particular from metaphysics. It is observation of the physical/science whose function it is to aid us in understanding the degree of our insignificance. It is reason/philosophy, metaphysics in particular, whose function it is to aid us in the understanding the degree of our significance. Why is this the case? This is the case because science deals with the physical and philosophy deals with the abstract. Again, we see the validity of Zeno’s assertion that both the physical and the abstract exist as independent entities dependent upon one another. Where then does our third means of developing perceptions enter the picture? Religion, our ability to believe, our third means of developing perceptions, finds its function lies in aiding us in believing what it is we observe and what it is we find reasonable. This is not to say that everything we observe or reason is ‘fact’. Rather it simply says: If we cannot believe in anything we observe or believe in anything we reason, then there is nothing but religion itself left in which we can believe. We presently have a fairly secure scientific/observational understanding regarding who we are and how it is that we, humans, awareness, a packet of knowledge, an entity of abstractual consciousness, function as an entity of abstractual consciousness existing in a region where we are immersed in time rather than time being immersed within ourselves. Since we basically understand the concept that our physical essence lies within time and space, we will not be examining such a concept within the limits of this tractate. We presently, however, do not understand who we are and how it could be that we, humans, awareness, a packet of knowledge, an entity of abstractual consciousness, could function as an entity of abstractual consciousness existing within a region where we are not immersed in time but rather time is immersed within us. The understanding of this concept will be the focus of our attention in Part II of this tractate. What do the two previous paragraphs have to do with Copernicus, Centricism, and non-Centricism? The first ‘We presently…’ paragraph deals with Copernicus’ initiation of Centricism being the principle found within our universe, found within our reality. It is this concept, which fundamentally defines Zeno’s concepts of ‘multiplicity’ discussed in Tractate 1. The second ‘We presently…’ paragraph deals with Copernicus’ inadvertent initiation of potential non-Centricism being the principle found ‘outside’ the universe, found ‘outside’ our reality, found ‘within’ the greater Reality. It is this concept, which fundamentally defines Zeno’s concepts of ‘seamlessness’ discussed in Tractate 1. How do we begin to understand such an alien concept as time existing ‘within’ us when we exist in a region of timelessness? How does such a concept even begin to relate to Copernicus himself? The whole concept of understanding such seemingly non-understandable concepts had its foundation laid within Tractates one, two, and three. Zeno, Aristotle, and Boethius all influenced our way of thinking and as such subconsciously directed us to a conclusion regarding Copernicus’ revelations, conclusions Copernicus may have also deduced but by no means stipulated in his observations. Copernican astronomy: The system of astronomy that was proposed by the Polish astronomer, Nicolas Copernicus (1473 –1543) in his book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, which was published in the month of his death and first seen by him on his deathbed. It used some elements of ‘Ptolemaic astronomy’, but rejected the notion, then current, that the earth was a stationary body at the centre of the universe. Instead Copernicus proposed the apparently unlikely concept that the sun was at the centre of the universe and that the earth was hurtling through space in a circular orbit about it. (Oxford Concise Science Dictionary, 1996) What was it Copernicus suggested that had such a great influence upon our philosophical train of thought? Copernicus moved the concept of ‘center’ beyond our reach and it has remained beyond our reach ever since. The concept of center moved off our planet, moved beyond our ability to ‘go there’. As our abilities to ‘go there’ expanded, the ‘center’ of our ‘known’ reality moved further and further from our reach. One thing that did not change, however, was our perception that a center to ‘it all’ could be found and so it is we look for the origination of ‘Om’ the sound emanating from the center of origination itself, the sound originating from the center of the universe itself, the sound originating from the center of reality itself. Since Copernicus, we have clung to the concept of centricism and rejected the very idea of a non-centrist existence. So it is, abstraction and the physical remain as Zeno’s seamlessness and Zeno’s multiplicity confined ‘within’ reality. So it is we ignore the concept of a greater ‘Reality’. So it is the Aristotelian concept of the physical and the abstract being ‘contained’ within the lesser reality of the physical universe maintains its status of authenticity while the potential existence of a greater Reality, a reality with no center maintains its status as an occult form of metaphysical existence. How sad it is that we have allowed the once proud intellectual arena of metaphysics to fall to such a lowly status. How sad that we have wrapped ourselves within the boundaries of the physical, only to feel its wrappings shrink in upon our psyche and sense our sanity slipping into a form of mimicry Gerard so aptly describes. We must find the means of cutting the wrappings confining our psyche. We must emerge from the imprisonment of our own making or we shall surely collapse what small sense of abstractual hedonism still exists and we shall find ourselves completely seduced by the charms of physical hedonism. Part II: Resolving the paradox of Centricism with a new metaphysical perception Centricism: Philosophically we have been immersed within the concept of centricism since time began. We have seen ourselves as the center of concern. We have seen our tribes as the center of sociological development We have seen "Om' as the center of the universe. We have seen the Earth as the center of the universe. We have seen the Sun as the center of the solar system. We have seen the nucleus as the center of the atom. We have seen God as the center of creation. We have seen ourselves forever searching for the center, for the origination point of the universe. Philosophically and religiously, Centricism has not disappeared just because Copernicus scientifically demonstrated that the earth is not the center of the solar system. We still seek the center. We are not only scientifically, but philosophically and religiously enamored with the concept of ‘a’ ‘center’. We understand there is a location for multiplicity. We now understand there may well be ‘a’ separate location for the ‘lack of multiplicity’/seamlessness. (Tractate 1: Zeno) We have now seen there is a location for the physical. We have seen there may well be ‘a’ separate location for abstraction. (Tractate 2: Aristotle) We have observed there is a location for free will. We have observed there may well be ‘a’ separate location for determinism. (Tractate 3: Boethius) By the end of this tractate, we will be able to make a fourth statement. We will be able to state: We recognize there is a location for centricism. We recognize there may well be ‘a’ separate location for non-centricism. (Tractate 4: Copernicus) The rationality regarding our universe, our reality, being a part of a larger ‘Reality’, grows with each tractate.