|
 
 
Tractate 4 : The Error of Copernicus (continued)
The concept of what ‘will be’ only exists ‘within’ time and if we review what we had previously learned of time, we find time to be ‘located’ within two locations:
Since time is not found either as an innate characteristic of region #3 nor as a medium of region #3 ‘within’ which subsets of region #3 find themselves immersed, there is no concept of ‘what will be’ to be found in region #3.
This is not to say time is not found ‘within’ region #3, rather it demonstrated time is not an all-pervasive characteristic, a universal medium of region #3. Time is found in region #3 in two distinct location of which we are presently capable of perceiving. Time is found ‘within’ entities of ‘knowing’, which have evolved out of the ‘universe’, and time is found as a medium of the universe within which entities of ‘knowing’ move from being ‘virgin’ entities of ‘knowing’ to being complete entities of ‘knowing’.
Where then does the ‘Book of Divine Knowledge’ find itself to be in terms of the metaphysical system of singular location, ‘being’ being ‘Being’?
Stepping ‘into’ Centricism: Independence
Having stepped ‘in’ beyond Centricism and into the region characterized by non-Centricism, let’s now step ‘out’ of non-Centricism and into Centricism – Independence. To do so we will begin where we initiated the understanding of region #3:
By moving ‘into’ Centricism we are in essence moving ‘beyond’ non-Centricism/dependency and into Independency. As such our graphic now becomes:
Region #1 is a location where our unique experiencing begins at the point of nothingness and forms in a unique manner to ourselves based upon our own unique experiences.
As we previously discussed, upon termination of the journey of knowing within time and space, the entity is no longer ‘empty’ or partially ‘empty’ of knowledge. This leads us to our next step. We are going to remove the ‘filled’ entity of knowing since we are focusing upon the ‘process’ of knowing and how it interacts with the concept of Centricism, which Copernicus so aptly entrenched in the field of science.
As such, our graphic becomes:
The ‘empty’ unit, the ‘virgin entity of knowing’ has absolutely nothing abstractual or otherwise within it at only one point in time. The ‘virgin entity of knowing’ is empty when it is simply ‘process’. Until the process of knowing begins, the entity is in a state of passivity and only enters the active state of being when it makes the step beyond being in a passive state to being in an active state. A detailed discussion of such states was explored within Tractate 2: Aristotle.
Since we discussed the concept of a passive state of knowing in Tractate 2, we will proceed to examine the active state of knowing, the process of filling an abstractual unit of active knowing with the substance it needs to exist as an entity, the substance of knowledge and experience.
The entity exists enmeshed in the fabric of time and space/distance since time and space are the very fabrics of region #1.
With the aid of this graphic, we can now begin to understand the interrelationship between existing entities found within region #1. We can now begin to understand the very concept of not only the very existence of Centricism itself but we can begin to understand the process as well as the potentiality of Centricism.
Existence within Centricism:
We will take the latter diagram and reduce region #3, the location of non-Centricism since we are concerned with region #1. Since region #1 is located ‘within’ region #3, the only way to do this while expanding region #1 is to apply the concept of relativistic size of region #1 compared to region #3. In addition to modifying the relative size of each region, we will expand upon the number of entities of knowing which evolve through the process of ‘traveling’, experiencing region #1 – the location of space, time, matter, energy…:
The entities of actively growing knowing:
- Are each unique in and of themselves due to their being in the process of acquiring unique experiencing as they move through time and space. Each entity of knowing has its own unique perceptions and experiencing assembled uniquely by the linear progression of the multiple facets of both time and space or whatever abstractual fabric should exist within the ‘universe’ from which the entity of knowing emerges
- Vary in size since relative to each other they contain vastly different ‘quantities’ of knowledge and contain vastly different experiences.
- Not only may appear but do vary regarding their ‘distance’ apart since they are immersed in a location whose very fabric is composed of distance. In essence, the ‘distance’ separating them does exist. They are therefore all separated by varying degrees of distance no two distances of which are equal
- Are dependent upon beginning – end parameters since they are immersed in time and space, are immersed within a form of Centricism
Process
- Take ‘time’ to get from one to another, to get from one place to another, since there is ‘distance’ to traverse
- Are incapable of ‘knowing’ one another completely since they are not complete forms of knowledge but rather are actively and uniquely experiencing knowledge and being assembled through the active process of knowing and experiencing uniquely. The process itself becomes uniquely an integral part of themselves since the active process of gaining knowledge is the creation of the perception of knowledge and experiencing through the process of knowing itself.
Potentiality
- Are incapable of incorporating other ‘newly’ developing entities of unique knowledge, knowing, and experiencing for their process of ‘forming’ has not yet ended and therefore any new knowledge and experiencing ‘affects’ the very formation of the entity itself is in the process of ‘becoming’.
- Partial summations of a unique entity of knowing as well as the complete summation of the unique entity of knowing is as varied as the potential combinations the parts of ‘a’ particular unique entity of developing knowing can allow confined to itself. This is known as ‘limited’ knowing.
- Potentiality within region #1 is, due to #1 – 8, limited to the abstractual and ? and ? fabric of a particular universe. In ‘our’ case, potentiality regarding formation of unique entities of knowing is limited to what time, space, matter, and energy will allow. Since uniqueness is a quality acquired by the active process of knowing itself, each entity of knowing is unique and becomes so independent of one another
Independence thus becomes the principle of region #1.
This is not to say that individuals are not dependent upon one another in society. What it says is that the very concept of uniqueness is a quality of existence itself and is not a characteristic ‘given’ by one individual to another.
Centricism is not a difficult concept to comprehend because we are, after all, immersed ‘within’ Centricism’, and as such we not only observe but experience time and space to be concepts expanding ‘outward’ from ‘a’ point of reference which varies from conscious knowing to conscious knowing.
What must not be lost within the exploration of the familiar, however, is that within a location whose very fabric is that of space and time, ‘correct’ sequencing is a fundamental principle. One cannot die unless one is first born, one cannot wake up unless one first goes to sleep, one cannot swim unless one first goes into the water. Granted the term ‘cannot’ may be too strong a term to use in these particular examples but the concept of ‘correct’ sequencing is an aspect of time and space and as such is something all of us within our personal universe understand.
Region #1 therefore is a location where our unique experiencing does not depend upon what others have to offer us to experience. Rather our own experiencing is in the process of ‘becoming’ as uniquely experienced by ourselves. Our own unique experiencing and knowledge as viewed uniquely through our own knowing is becoming what it is - our own uniqueness. We are in the process of becoming rather than being what we finally are to be. We can change with the infusion, embracing, union of experiencing space and time while immersed within matter and energy.
Divine intervention? Perhaps. Who is to say what the whole is capable of doing within its creation: the universe, our reality.
How can an ‘all knowing’ entity be all knowing if it doesn’t know ‘all things’?
Again we must ask: Doesn’t this diagram imply ‘all Knowing’ doesn’t know what ‘will be’ and doesn’t this in turn imply time exists in ‘all Knowing’?
Again, we must reply: The concept of what ‘will be’ only exist ‘within’ time. If we review what we had previously learned of time we find time to be ‘located’ within two locations:
Since time is not found either as an innate characteristic of region #3 nor as a medium of region #3 ‘within’ which subsets of region #3 find themselves immersed, there is no concept of ‘what will be’ to be found in region #3.
This is not to say time is not found ‘within’ region #3, rather it demonstrated time is not an all-pervasive characteristic, a universal medium of region #3. Time is found in region #3 in two distinct location of which we are presently capable of perceiving. Time is found ‘within’ entities of ‘knowing’, which have evolved out of the ‘universe’, and time is found as a medium of the universe within which entities of ‘knowing’ move from being ‘virgin’ entities of ‘knowing’ to being complete entities of ‘knowing’.
Where then does the ‘Book of Divine Knowledge’ find itself to be in terms of the metaphysical system of singular location, ‘being’ being ‘Being’?
The significance of insignificance: Random Sequencing
There is really no place to begin with such a topic. Perhaps that is a fitting observation considering the topic itself: randomness.
We have, however, little choice but to begin if we are to understand the significance of insignificance.
So lets begin:
Or:
Or:
The potential names of points A, B, and C using the Cartesian coordinates ( X, Y, Z ) grows as the number of locations for the origin increases. The number of locations of the origin grows exponentially as the number of dimensions grows linearly.
One could begin with one point and zero dimensions. By doing so one observes
Since a point has no length, depth, or height, point A has zero dimensions.
By adding one dimension we obtain: zero dimensions + one dimension = one dimension but the potential names for ‘a’ point becomes infinite in nature:
The point A has the potential to be located anywhere upon line n. The concept of one dimension being the only existence creates a line, line n, which is infinite in length. Point A has the potential of being located anywhere upon line n since, by definition, point A has no length. Point A could move along line n, however, point A need not move to change position relative to line n, line n could move relative to dimensions 2, 3, 4 … which exist to us but not to the situation we are discussing. Such a statement is neither a paradox nor an untruth. As we, you and I can readily attest to, just because ‘a’ dimension and its components are not aware of other dimensions does not mean other dimensions do not exist.
If we now add a second dimension, we can observe the nonlinear growth of potential points of location for point A.
So it is two and then three dimensions can be understood to exponentially grow the perceptual potential coordinates for point A. If we presume point A can move or if point A is presumed to be static in its location the same results of exponential growth for the names of point A can be understood to increase if we presume the X and Y axis move.
If we then factor in the name of point A changing with time, again the perception regarding point A’s contribution to the space/time relationship causes another exponential increase in the coordinate names point A could acquire.
But what does this have to do with abstractual concepts of free will, determinism, significance and insignificance?
This progression of thought regarding the exponential expansion of perceptual spatial location generated through increasing numbers of dimensions leads us to the rudimentary mindset which will help us understand the exponential expansion of the totality of perceptual ‘knowing’ generated through increasing numbers of unique entities of ‘knowing’ evolving out of free will.
To understand the connection let us look at a unit entity of awareness, a unit entity of ‘knowing’ as it develops within the physical:
Virgin awareness, virgin ‘knowing’, begins with no ‘knowing’ and expands through experiencing within the universe. As such, it could be drawn as:
The transparency of the rectangular prism represents the ability of the physical to continue to affect and form the entity of ‘knowing’. The entity of knowing continues to grow, experience, and formulate its completeness of unique ‘knowing ‘until it’ dies. At the point of its no longer being capable of continuing to grow its summation of awareness, we obtain what could be diagramed as:
The ability to initiate actions of free will combined with the ability to experience actions bound by the laws of nature generate the unit of unique abstractual perception which has developed.
Now lets remove the influence of the physical since, as symbolized by the ‘filled’ rectangular prism, the sensory mechanism has been removed from the individual unit of perceptual development. This removal of the physical does not imply the abstractual uniqueness of the unit of ‘knowing’ just ‘goes away’. In fact, the implication of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ implies quite the contrary. As such, we obtain the following:
We have removed physical reality in order to study the entity of awareness. We will label this entity: unit A. Keep in mind. Unit A is no longer a Virgin point of ‘knowing’ but rather a point of ‘knowing’ having its own unique perceptual ‘outlook’ which has been developed through the influence of an almost infinite number of abstractual interactions. Such interactions have been generated through the actions of both free will initiated by itself and initiated by actions of free will generated by other units of ‘knowing’, as well as generated by actions bound by the laws of nature.
In essence, the unit of abstraction indicated above is ‘filled’ with various perceptions, desires, wants, loves jealousy, greed, compassion, etc. One must also recognize the unit to be just that: ‘a unit’. It is. It is unique. It has’wholeness’ of perception that is unique in and of itself.
Before we move any further, one will find it interesting to note that if Unit A is the whole of existence, then:
- The potential perceptual development of the whole is simply that of unit A
- The number of abstractual existences are infinite in number but limited to what is found in unit A
- Perceptions of time and distance can be found ‘within’ unit A but not ‘outside’ unit A for there is nothing ‘outside’ unit A
- The ‘whole’ is identical to unit A and as such has the same perceptions as unit A
- The ‘whole’ has the power of unit A and no more
- The ‘whole’ has the same ‘knowing’ as unit A and no more
- The ‘whole’ has the same ‘presence’ as unit A and no more
Sound familiar? The discussion evolves out of Tractates 1, 2, and 3: Zeno, Aristotle, and Boethius.
In order to address our understanding of what we mean by the whole we will enclose unit A within the whole:
It is obvious the whole is Unit A. It is also obvious time and distance are abstractions found ‘within’ unit A for the elements necessary to generate the concepts of time and distance are no longer present. Time and distance are elements of space and matter both of which had been removed when we erased the circle which represented the physical reality of the universe.
What then happens if a second unit of ‘knowing’ is added to the system above?
Now we no longer can say:
- The potential perceptual development of the whole is simply that of unit A
- The number of abstractual existences are infinite in number but limited to what is found in unit A
- Perceptions of time and distance can be found ‘within’ unit A but not ‘outside’ unit A for there is nothing ‘outside’ unit A
- The ‘whole’ is identical to unit A and as such has the same perceptions as unit A
- The ‘whole’ has the power of unit A and no more
- The ‘whole’ has the same ‘knowing’ as unit A and no more
- The ‘whole’ has the same ‘presence’ as unit A and no more
We must now say:
- The potential perceptual development of the whole is that of unit A, unit B, or unit A + unit B
- The number of abstractual existences are infinite in number but is no longer limited to what is found in unit A, rather it is limited to what is found in unit A, unit B, or unit A + unit B
- Perceptions of time and distance can be found ‘within’ unit A or found ‘within’ unit B but not ‘outside’ unit A and/or unit ‘B’ for there is nothing ‘outside’ unit A and unit B
- There is now something found ‘outside’ unit A and that is not only ‘unit’ B but the summation of unit A + unit B
- The ‘whole’ is identical to unit A, or unit B, or unit A + unit B and as such has the same perceptions as unit A or unit B or unit A + unit B
- The ‘whole’ has the power of unit A or unit B or unit (A + B) and no more
- The ‘whole’ has the same ‘knowing’ as unit A or unit B or unit (A + B) and no more
- The ‘whole’ has the same ‘presence’ as unit A or unit B or unit (A + B) and no more
It becomes apparent that the increase in the varieties of combinations of the whole increase not on a linear basis but rather on some form of geometrical or exponential basis. If we expand our units of unique ‘knowing’ developed under the laws of free will, we obtain three units of unique knowing and as such obtain:
At this point, we could reevaluate the results of the above using the same format we previously used. This process however becomes beset with even more verbiage than previously. To minimize this problem of verbiage we will examine the results of the above using more diagrams.
We will now open unit A and pour its ‘substance’ into the Whole.
Example 1: If Unit A only
Possibilities for the Whole:
1. A
Example 2: If Unit A and Unit B only
Possibilities for the Whole:
Before we go to example three, we should address the question of why the potential for BA? AB and BA are not the same even though time and/or distance are not ‘active’ elements of the whole. Time and distance are elements of Unit A and Unit B. As such, should the contents of A and B be released ‘into’ the Whole, then time and distance become options with which the Whole can develop its own unique perceptions.
At first glance, it would appear the characteristic of cardinality would only be relevant if one speaks in terms of sequencing physical perceptions generated through the element of cardinality innately found in spatial cardinal concepts of distance or if one speaks in terms of sequencing abstractual perceptions generated through the element of cardinality innately found in the abstractual cardinal concept of time.
The perceptions generated through the potential combinations of A and B are not A, B, and AB but also BA. A fifth state of the whole itself exists. This fifth state of being is the summation of some sequential form of A and B independent of the perception developed through an order of sequencing.
Having said this we then obtain a new perspective for the possibilities for the whole, which in turn will allow us to move to example three.
Example 2 corrected:
Possibilities for the whole:
Example 3:
Possibilities for the whole:
1. A
2. B
3. C
4. AB
5. BA
6. BC
7. the whole of A and B
8. ABC
9. ACB
10. BAC
11. BCA
12. CAB
13. CBA
14. the whole of A and B and C
There is a pattern developing here. The mathematics of it are much to difficult to explore in this tractate. However, a simplistic example can be demonstrated by following a similar yet much more simplistic sequence:
Example 1:
A
Example 2:
A, B, AB
Example 3:
A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, ABC
Example 4:
A, B, C, D, AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD
As one examines the increase in potential possibilities generated by the sequence one begins to appreciate the significance of each unit.
If there is only one unit, the unit is the whole, there is nothing greater.
If ‘a’ second unit is added the number of potential possibilities expands by two not one, expands to three.
If ‘a’ third unit is added the number of potential possibilities expands by four not one, expands to seven.
If ‘a’ fourth unit is added the number of potential possibilities expands by eight not one, expands to fifteen.
Any one unit of growth may or may not be greater than another. The size of the unit is not what is important here but rather what is important is the very fact that an additional unit has been added. Mathematically we see the pattern as being:
As one can see, the potential increases non-linearly. Each unit added has tremendous repercussion upon the potential of the whole. Each unit added has tremendous significance to the whole. Each unit added impacts the whole more than once, more than itself.
But where is the individual unit here? It appears to be lost. It appears to be lost not because it is lost but because we have not fully expanded upon the pattern.
If we more fully expand the pattern to be what it is, we obtain:
This does not appear to fit the pattern unless we adjust the pattern accordingly:
All of a sudden, we see the base for what it is. The base, the foundation, is built upon the individual unit since ‘n’ is the epitome of individuality itself. ‘n’ is the set of unit numbers in their very completeness of form. ‘n’ is the set of natural numbers beginning with one and extending into infinity as a set comprised of increasingly large numbers of whole, complete units based upon ‘a’ whole unit itself.
As we can see, the growth is not geometric but exponential.
Is this an anomaly or is this the very concept upon which the growth of the whole itself is built when one speaks of ‘all knowing’? Within the system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, this is not an anomaly but rather the foundation of total knowing, the whole itself.
Under the metaphysical system of symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, the very perceptual abilities of the whole grow exponentially with each unit of knowing added to it. Furthermore, the growth is not based simply upon the pattern diagrammed above but rather the pattern leaps beyond this potential by a factor of:
The whole of A + the whole of A and B + the whole of A and B and C + …
So it is each individual unit added may be added to such a large number of others that it appears insignificant compared to the whole but it is in fact ‘the’ element which increases the whole exponentially over the huge ‘potentiality of ‘knowing" it had been previous to the individuals addition to the whole.
Doesn’t the concept of ‘previously’ imply an element of time and sequencing? No and that is the very reason the concept such as alphabetical sequencing, a concept of sequencing ‘controlled’ by time becomes a limit not imposed upon the whole of abstraction itself. The result of course is an even greater form of exponential growth applying to the whole than the form of exponential growth we demonstrated.
Suddenly, through an understanding of a new metaphysical system – through an understanding of a non-Cartesian system powered by a Cartesian system – through an understanding of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, through an understanding of a system of determinism powered by free will, we begin a new understanding regarding the very significance of the seemingly insignificant.
Humanity, the individual, begins its upward climb out of the depths of insignificance and into the glory of significance itself.
The explosive nature of the potentiality of knowing
Adding ‘a’ piece of knowing creates an explosion of potential combinations over and above what existed previously. As each new piece of knowing is added, the addition creates an exponential expansion of potentiality to which the next piece of knowing can add its potentiality of growth to the whole.
Potentiality now becomes a situation of ‘expanding’, increasing, potential growth itself on an exponential basis as opposed to an ‘expanding’, increasing potential growth on a geometrical basis.
As such, the whole of knowing, the whole itself, moves from simply ‘being’ to ‘Being’. The whole itself now gains not just the potential to grow but gains the potential to grow in a potentially explosive manner. The difference may best be understood as that of the difference in existence of a substance, the explosive nature of the substance gun powder and the explosive nature of fission, and the explosive nature of fusion and now: the explosive nature of knowing.
What does this have to do with Centricism and non-Centricism? It is the very concept of Centricism, which limits the potentiality of the Whole itself. It is Centricism which limits our potential significance. And the further away we appear to be from the center of the whole, the less significant we perceive our significance itself to be.
This was not the intent of Copernicus as he reevaluated the concept regarding the ‘location’ of the center. As little as Copernicus had expected to influence our very understanding regarding the significance of the individual, his work involving the search for the center of the physical was to impact humanity’s most fundamental perception regarding the value of the individual and its own specie.
Removing a piece of Randomness
To understand the significance regarding the impact removing a piece of knowing from the whole has upon the whole itself, one must not begin by removing what one find at the left but at the right of the graphic:
And with that the significance of removing, losing, terminating, interfering with, ‘cutting short’, a piece of knowing’s potential once it has ‘become’, speaks for itself. Interfering with the development of a unit of knowing affects the outcome of what the Whole is.
Boethius’ metaphysical system and why we can now file it away as a part of the annals of history:
We must now come back to the diagram representing the ‘location’ of free will and the ‘location’ of determinism in order to understand why it is we can finally relegate Boethius’ metaphysical system to the annals of history, relegate Boethius’ metaphysical system to that of being a history book as opposed to being a current philosophical theme.
This aspect of Tractate 3: Boethius, was put on hold until we were able to expand our understanding regarding Centricism and its affect upon units of knowing addressed within this tractate. We can now return to the concept of free will and determinism for a short summation as to why Boethius’ metaphysical system can now be filed away in the archives of interesting historical paradoxes.
As we have done so often before, we find ourselves in need of simplifying the diagram. Simplifying we obtain:
New questions now begin to emerge. Questions emerge which had no opportunity to emerge under the confines of Boethius’ system where determinism was bound ‘within’ the same confines as free will.
Is the whole confined by actions bound by the laws of free will? Graphically we now understand such a question to be represented as:
Is the whole confined by action bound by the laws of determinism? Graphically we now understand such a question to be represented as:
Is determinism found ‘within’ the location of free will? Graphically we now understand such a question to be represented as:
Is free will found ‘within’ the location of determinism? Graphically we now understand such a question to be represented as:
Etc., etc., etc.
The questions, not the answers, have only been presented. The questions are limitless, the answers now become intuitively understandable through the application of the new metaphysical perception: ‘being’ being ‘Being’ or generically speaking ‘symbiotic panentheism’.
Some of these questions are not metaphysical in nature but rather are ontological in nature. It is for this very reason that this new metaphysical perception of a non-Cartesian system being powered by a Cartesian system appears to relegate Boethius’ system to the annals of history.
Boethius’ system appeared to leave metaphysics in a state of stagnation while this new perception opens up an almost infinite array of new metaphysical thoughts as well as philosophical thoughts in general.
But what of the answers to the given questions? How can one possible bring up such topics of discussion and then leave the reader in a state of suspended anticipation? For the time being, we have little choice but to proceed with this work regarding The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. However, if it is of any solace, these questions will come up again in Tractate 18: The End of the Beginning – Theoretical Metaphysics Emerges.
For the time being, however, we must get back on track or we will never get done with the examination of many of philosophy’s greatest paradoxes and how it is we can now resolve them and as such relegate not just Boethius’ paradox but a large number of paradoxes to the annals of history.
Archimedean Points
Archimedean Points are referred to by Husserl as ‘the’ Archimedean Point. The Archimedean Point is the unshakable foundation of human knowledge. (Q: Can you expand on this statement? A: Husserl would suggest all things can be stripped away from reality until only one primary concept remains. Such a process would leave the most fundamental of foundations. Such a foundation would be termed ‘the Archimedean Point’ from which all else emerges. )
It is ‘within’ the individual, be it the subset of the whole as ‘the individual’ or ‘the whole’ as the individual, ‘within’ which, the ‘unit’ of knowledge is found. In addition, it is ‘within’ the individual, be it the subset of the whole as ‘the individual’ or ‘the whole’ as the individual, ‘within’ which, the process of knowing knowledge is found. The concept of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ now becomes two ‘substantives’, or two universals as Russell would say, interacting upon each other via the verb.
The universals, substantives: ‘being’ and ‘Being’
The verb: being
All three are elements of the system. To rephrase it, we have a system of: three in one.
So it is:
So it is each entity of knowing becomes ‘a’ first truth in relationship to itself, in relationship to the whole, and in relationship to the universe/reality
So it is ‘infinite relative 1st truths’ emerge within ‘finite relative 1st truths’ within ‘a’ 1st truth.
Philosophical infinities
Juxtaposition of infinities thus emerges as an essential element of the new metaphysical system ‘being’ being ‘Being’. The concurrence of ontological infinities, cosmological infinities, and metaphysical infinities arises out of the understanding of this new metaphysical perception.
We can simplify the above diagram as:
Such an understanding will lead us into a discussion of Kant’s Centricism and Hegel’s non-Centricism in Tractates Six and Seven respectively.
|
|
|