I wrote the following on Chris Thompson’s Blog:
I plan to try out the following for size…
In response, my good friend Maria wrote the following:
I can`t help thinking that there is a set of underlying axioms…
.
Here are the Axioms of Reason:
- The Inquiry is into the truth
- By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit
- Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality
- Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity
- Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence
- Truth is eternity; such is the perception of presence
- Truth is not cause or effect; such is the perception of freedom
- Truth must be just what it is and nothing else whatsoever; such perception of the inevitable is the power of truth
- Truth is individuality; such is the perception of humanity
- Truth is God; such is the perception of divinity
- Truth is good; such is the perception of satisfaction
- Truth is intelligence; such is the perception of mind
- Truth is not matter; such is the perception of substance
- Truth is love; such is the perception of bliss
- Truth is life; such is illumination
- Besides truth there is nothing; such is the perception of nature and creation
- Axiom of Assumption: Truth, even as an illusion, is still absolute; such is the perception of reflection
.
I am very happy with the request from Maria to post these axioms on my blog for discussion, because it forwards the purpose of this blog. I am very much looking forward to the discussion in accordance with the discussion policy.
.
Comments
Truth is the most perfect virtue,
And the highest good in itself,
Not troubled by matter,
Not encompassed by a body,
Naked, clear, unchangeable,
Venerable, unalterable, good.
—Hermes
The ultimate truth is beyond manifestation. It is unknowable. Manifestation provides a particular or peculiar identity or individuality, which may be considered another level of truth.
Anything manifested is changeable.
.
LikeLike
Wait til you see where he goes with this! He is relentless. It shall be most interesting to follow along his line of reasoning to see where it leads.
BTW I thought your summary list from the first two axioms was well conceived.
I would very much like to see the work you have been doing stand independently as its own work philosophically. Perhaps this exercise will serve to enable that. I suspect that Burnell`s work had enormous effects on the work of others even though his published works faded into relative obscurity.
LikeLike
Yes. I am curiously looking forward to further revelations.
To me all knowledge is connected. My purpose is to express the fundamentals of ‘what is’ as succinctly as possible. Each iteration of axioms should improve upon the previous one. Here we are dealing with Axioms of Reason. As yet I don’t know how they will influence the KHTK Axioms, but I am sure they will.
All these people were brilliant. I just hope that I am able to contribute something worthwhile by finding the interface between physics an metaphysics.
I am enjoying this exercise.
.
LikeLike
Me too.
LikeLike
The true self which is free from sin,
Free from old age and fear,
Free from death and grief,
Free from hunger and thirst,
Which desires only what it should desire,
Which imagines only what it should imagine,
That it is which we must search out,
That it is which we must understand,
He who has searched out the true self,
Obtains all worlds and all desires.
—Upanishad.
It is THAT which is not fixed by any consideration. It is totally free of all considerations. It is what it is.
.
LikeLike
Burnell says:
“Not what may be so, not what seems so, but what is so in the final analysis; not what is so relatively, but what is so absolutely; for as Spencer affirms, “unless a real absolute be postulated the relative becomes absolute, and so brings the argument to contradiction.” (First Principles, Sec. 26.)”
Truth seems to have an infinity of levels. When the truth is recognized as ‘what is’ it reduces to that recognition and understanding. At a later instance, that recognition and understanding may be looked at more closely in a wider context. It may lead to a deeper recognition and understanding… and so on.
.
LikeLike
That makes sense to me.
I was looking at the 1913 definition of absolute — which First Principles would have contributed to — for further discourse and meaning that may have gone obsolete in the last century.
ABSOLUTE:
1. Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional; as, absolute authority, monarchy, sovereignty, an absolute promise or command; absolute power; an absolute monarch.
Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless; as, absolute perfection; absolute beauty.
So absolute she seems,
And in herself complete.
Milton.
2. Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; — opposed to relative and comparative; as, absolute motion; absolute time or space.
Absolute rights and duties are such as pertain to man in a state of nature as contradistinguished from relative rights and duties, or such as pertain to him in his social relations.
3. Loosed from, or unconnected by, dependence on any other being; self-existent; self-sufficing.
* In this sense God is called the Absolute by the Theist. The term is also applied by the Pantheist to the universe, or the total of all existence, as only capable of relations in its parts to each other and to the whole, and as dependent for its existence and its phenomena on its mutually depending forces and their laws.
4. Capable of being thought or conceived by itself alone; unconditioned; non-relative.
* It is in dispute among philosopher whether the term, in this sense, is not applied to a mere logical fiction or abstraction, or whether the absolute, as thus defined, can be known, as a reality, by the human intellect.
To Cusa we can indeed articulately trace, word and thing, the recent philosophy of the absolute.–Sir W. Hamilton.
5. Positive; clear; certain; not doubtful. [R.]
I am absolute ‘t was very Cloten.–Shak.
6. Authoritative; peremptory.[R.]
The peddler stopped, and tapped her on the head,
With absolute forefinger, brown and ringed.
Mrs. Browning.
6. Pure; unmixed; as, absolute alcohol.
LikeLike
I like the definition of ABSOLUTE as ‘complete in itself’. Here we have nothing to compare to (another definition) . For example, this universe is absolute because we have no other universe to compare it to. Any universe we may dream up is also part of this universe, this being a universe of consideration, space, energy, matter and time.
This is the definition that seems to apply when we have absolute certainty on ‘what is’. Other definitions are different perspectives on the same concept.
.
LikeLike
Then we have to define “itself” in the context that you use. For me, when you say “itself” in this context I understand you to mean the current and the extant frame of reference.
LikeLike
I am going by Maria’s definition. To me, it means that something is its own frame of reference. Let’s see what Maria has to say.
.
LikeLike
So truth ends up being what seems to be absolute to us, what lies at the limit of our ability to perceive or consider, or what limits our ability to do so, and changes as our ability to push those frontiers increase (hopefully) :-).
LikeLike
Exactly where I am going. Therefore the infinity of fractal construct is simply that: Many Levels of Truth. or I can write Many Frames of Reference of Truth.
This can be judged through many filters. It could be viewed as “what is.” It could also be viewed as “a trap.”
These evaluations of what obviously seems to be there might be what I should be looking at.
LikeLike
I would start with looking at whatever is there, and not with what I want to be there.
.
LikeLike
This, I think, is my point to you.
LikeLike
I am off for the day again, I`ll leave you with Axiom IV
IV. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.
Because there can be nothing besides what is for it to change into; truth cannot change into nothing because there is no such thing; truth cannot change from one thing into another in itself because there is no difference or distinction in it, since it is universal sameness. Such is the persistent statement of the wise and good.
Since truth is permanence and all there is or can be, there is no such thing as change at all.
Hence all hope that looks for change is vain, for the mind is fixed by love upon permanence. Know then that there is nothing but permanence, nothing but constancy, nothing but reliability, nothing but immutability. There is only stability and security, faithfulness and unswervability, reliance and substantiality.
There can in truth be no growth, no evolution, no ambition, no development, no greed, no betterment, and if not in truth, then not at all. Such is the perception of permanence, steadfastness, loyalty, constancy, unvariableness.
LikeLike
To me that amounts to truth becoming a trap, and I just hope it must end up being exactly the opposite
LikeLike
Got to agree with Rafael on this. I’m reading Burnell’s Axiom IV and wondering what he is talking about. I know what the words mean in a conventional sense and because I am misunderstanding his paragraph so thoroughly, I think there must be something wrong with my own sense of reason.
LikeLike
The problem lies with Axiom III, which is then carried on to Axiom iV.
See comment-5534
.
LikeLike
Burnell says:
“What the reason must admit or abandon its nature; what is so by virtue of the reason’s being just what it is; what is axiomatic in the constitution of the reason; not only what the reason does believe in, but also what it cannot help believing in; that to which the reason can conceive no opposite; that which we cannot doubt, but do and must have faith in; that which we are forced to believe from the inability of the mind to think otherwise; such is axiomatic truth in the reason or faith.”
So we come down to an absolute certainty in recognizing what is. So, that is what it is at that level of truth. But then this recognition and understanding may open the door to a wider context of looking and may lead to a higher level of truth.
Each layer may have absolute certainty attached to it. But it may then open new doors that were not open before.
.
LikeLike
Yes, it is always an absolute certainty in recognizing what is. Every step of the way, and it is that absolute certainty that replaces perplexity and thus is seen to be good and satisfactory. Its that way because it can`t be any other way!
LikeLike
Each layer DOES have absolute certainty attached to it.
Maria: It’s that way because it can’t be any other way!
Chris: It’s ok with me if it is that way because it can’t be any other way, but I question if it can’t be any other way. If it can’t be any other way, then that seems deterministic to me — makes me deterministic. That’s ok.
I am seeing the makings of a new religion out of determinism. It would be a type of super-physics. (naturally, because writing that provided a brief respite from my struggles with the questions at hand, I felt relief. There is more to understand about epiphany.)
LikeLike
Well, there is your discreteness.
.
LikeLike
Maybe but “absolute certainty” has no particular claim on Truth that I know of.
LikeLike
Something is discrete only when it is all rounded up and tied with a ribbon nicely. That is what makes something discrete and not fuzzy.
LikeLike
Well this seems to be the direction I am going — toward the discrete aspects of MEST. But could you please clarify your point?
LikeLike
Discreteness reminds me of an electron which is mostly concentrated in the center but boundaries extend to infinity.
LikeLike
I understand your words but am missing your metaphor – please say more.
LikeLike
Burnell says:
“The three forms of expression and demonstration are (a) affirmation, which is the mental, verbal, and muscular admission, confession, and reception of axiomatic truth; executive acknowledgment; (b) denial, which is the mental, verbal and muscular rejection, refusal, repudiation of that which is not, of the false, of the error, of the illusion, of whatever the pure reason cannot believe in, of whatever the awakened and illumined consciousness finds unthinkable; (c) identification of affirmation and denial, which are not opposites, but as the striking of a light is the expulsion of the darkness, as the perception of the rope is the annihilation of the imagined snake, so denial and affirmation are the very same.”
Burnell seems to be saying that affirmation and denial are apparent only. Both disappear as one recognizes ‘what is’.
Now I am ready to tackle Burnell’s Axiom III. But I have to do some other things now.
.
LikeLike
I`m moving this axiom down here so we don`t have to hunt for it above.
III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
Because there cannot be anything besides what is; having found out what is, we must cancel what is not, leaving what is, or truth, to be all there is or can be. There can be no such thing as what is not. Speaking truly, a lie (what is not so) is nothing at all.
Thus it is obvious why all the illumined say that truth is all there is. To be at all, a thing must be what it is, for how can anything be what it is not or what is not!
What a thing is must be all there is to it – what is, is all and must be all. Sooner or later it must be self-evident to us that truth is universality. What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.
Whatever shall be found at last to be so will be found to be all in all. Such is the perception of allness, completeness, wholeness, health, entireness, absoluteness, universality, incomparability; such is truth.
What is so plus what is not so about anything equals all there is to it; then canceling what is not so as nothing we have left what is so equals all. Thus truth is the same as allness. Kant announced the allness of truth.
[I have deleted the duplicate at the earlier location because there were no responses attached to it. And I have moved the following definition form Maria here for convenience sake. ~ Vinaire]
UNIVERSALITY: The quality or state of being universal; unlimited extension or application; generality; — distinguished from particularity; as, the unIversality of a proposition; the unIversality of sin; the unIversality of the Deluge. (1913)
.
LikeLike
I would consider UNIVERSE to be the super set of everything considered. If somebody dreams up something “outside the universe”, it would actually be part of this universe being a consideration.
.
LikeLike
This is more of an axiom than some of these others which contain assumptions.
LikeLike
No — take care here. He does not say universe. He says universality. Two different concepts. Universality: unlimited extension or application; generality; — distinguished from particularity. You are talking about a collection in a set. He is not.
LikeLike
Alright, so truth is universal, which means truth to be a characteristic that is applicable to everything. Is this what you mean?
Well, such characteristics are:
Existence
Consideration
Space
Energy
Matter
Time
That is what I have taken up in the beginning KHTK AXIOMS.
.
LikeLike
AXIOM OF REASON #1 – The inquiry is into the truth.
AXIOM OF REASON #2 – By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
AXIOM OF REASON #3 – Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
Burnell says:
“Because there cannot be anything besides what is; having found out what is, we must cancel what is not, leaving what is, or truth, to be all there is or can be. There can be no such thing as what is not. Speaking truly, a lie (what is not so) is nothing at all.”
So, this universe is ‘what is.’ One’s filters are also the part of ‘what is’. Lies are also part of ‘what is.’ In short, all thoughts, ideas, considerations, etc. are also part of what is.
.
LikeLike
No, lies are not part of what is. They are a mask of falseness that obscures what is. They are not what is. They APPEAR to be what is until you remove them and then what remains is what is. Remove the consideration that is masking what is and you have what is. It may be that what is defined as universe is largely composed of false considerations that once exposed reveal the truth.
LikeLike
This reads like a long version of Vin’s neti-neti — “neither this nor that.” I can follow that drill parallel to your “Remove the consideration that is masking what is and you have what is” to also get at “what is.”
I do not intend to be a curmudgeon. You guys are better at this axiomatic foundation building and I am good at looking for cracks. That statement puts me in the category of critic but I guess that is what a building inspector is.
LikeLike
Don`t mistake my efforts to think this through as holding a position on all this. I will write my answers as best I can push through it and I am counting on you to look for cracks. Part of what I am doing with all this is watching my own processes as we work through this. You call them cracks, I call them corner-of-the-eye slippiness, creeping around the edges where I can just see the very tip of the thread. So don`t hesitate to bring things up and don`t hesitate to poke around. Burnell may be way off base, but I am finding it very useful to look from this radical point of view. And he may be right. I cannot say that I have 100% established the truth even for myself although maybe I just think I haven`t. But its dog-at-a-bone for me and so here I am.
LikeLike
Point taken Maria. I don’t make that assumption about you. I know we are exploring here. All these metaphors for searching for and finding consistencies and inconsistencies are fine and understandable for me.
I don’t care and wouldn’t say that Burnell is “way off base.” I’m not that smart anyways. My plan is to consult him as you present and look for bits to learn. Ultimately, my hypothesis is that he looked from a certain frame of reference and things looked a certain way from that point of view. From that point of view I think that considerations can be consistent and from another point of view, viewing different considerations that those can also be consistent though they be different.
Likewise, inconsistent considerations won’t necessarily remain inconsistent in every frame of reference once they are applied to a different frame of reference from the initial frame viewed. They may become more consistent.
All jigsaw pieces are inconsistent one to another until such a time as each and every piece is turned only one certain way. Like your cat, the pieces are discrete and yet inter-related to make a whole.
LikeLike
I would say that if it is a “mask of falseness” then that’s what it is. It is not nothing. It is a “mask of falseness”.
That is the concept of as-is-ness that I like.
.
LikeLike
Burnell says:
“Thus it is obvious why all the illumined say that truth is all there is. To be at all, a thing must be what it is, for how can anything be what it is not or what is not!
What a thing is must be all there is to it – what is, is all and must be all. Sooner or later it must be self-evident to us that truth is universality. What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.”
Burnell does not seem to regard “nothing” as part of ‘what is’.
There is an inconsistency here. If I am looking at a question and I get no answer, then the truth for me is, “there is no answer.” Will that be acceptable as truth to Burnell?
.
LikeLike
No he is saying if it is, then it is. It cannot be nothing and something at the same time. It is or it isn`t. If it isn`t then it isn`t and therefore is nothing, nothing being nothing at all. A lie is false, which means it isn`t.
LikeLike
Maria: No he is saying if it is, then it is. It cannot be nothing and something at the same time. It is or it isn`t. If it isn`t then it isn`t and therefore is nothing, nothing being nothing at all. A lie is false, which means it isn`t.
Chris: Your statement remains consistent until the final sentence when “A lie is false, which means it isn’t” is in itself completely false to me. Why is this last sentence not false to you?
If you mean that a lie is false and so therefore it is not true, I get the tautology, but that is as far as I get.
LikeLike
This is good and I really want to work this through.
A lie is something that is held to be true, held to be in existence, but in fact does not exist or has a different existence than claimed.
If it is a lie, and it actually exists as something in its own right, then it is not a lie, but it may be incorrectly attributed to something.
As an example, the flat earth idea. It existed as an opinion. And it can continue to have existence as an opinion, even though it has been proven to be false. We cannot say the opinion exists therefore it is true — it is not what is. Therefore it is really nothing — its an opinion and not a thing at all.
LikeLike
Perhaps this is the genus of the idea that one can dissolve a lie, but cannot dissolve the truth. The lie is essentially nothing and so can disappear. When all the lies have been disappeared, then they no longer obscure what is.
LikeLike
I like the way Hubbard puts it, It is truth when one recognizing a lie to be a lie. A work of fiction calling itself fiction is the truth. This is as-is-ness. You recognize something for what it is.
.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your use of the term “as-isness” in this context and also in the comment “this is the type of as-isness that I like.”
LikeLike
Maybe this can be tackled with set theory:
Burnell is saying Truth is a set which is perfect, complete, so it includes everything, but falsehood cannot be included in that set, therefore falsehood can not exist, otherwise it would turn truth into a sub-set and falsehood into another sub-set of a bigger set which would encompass both and whose name would be…………………?
LikeLike
So it seems the problem begins when we try to know something by looking at it as a discrete, distinct set, as the cat example, but it really cannot exist as such.
LikeLike
The moment we create a set, we give it boundaries, making it incomplete.
LikeLike
See comment-5534
.
LikeLike
Yes, it is like saying what is not included in this set does not exist, and by that, we are defining reality, but more exactly, what we are defining (and trapping inside limits) is our reality.
LikeLike
And this may be true and typical of the discrete set of the instant moment.
LikeLike
On the not getting an answer…
Hmmm… I would imagine he would say that nothing happened when you asked the question. Saying that nothing happened would be true. Nothing happened.
Fascinating.
LikeLike
It seems that Burnell is saying,
What is, IS. It is not something else.
That’s a tautology. It is confusing to attach too many words to it.
.
LikeLike
Vinaire: “There is an inconsistency here. If I am looking at a question and I get no answer, then the truth for me is, ‘there is no answer.’ ”
Chris: I’d rather say ” I haven’t gotten an answer.” Thus leaving the door open.
LikeLike
Yes, you are right.
I was looking from the viewpoint of a pc in a session. The answer may not be there because other things may have to be unburdened first. But repetitive questioning of a process makes it hard on the pc.
.
LikeLike
Wow. I don’t know where to begin. I have to spend more time on it but at first glance is a mish-mash of consistent and inconsistent assumptions.
Maybe except for his “What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.” This seems consistent to me but not the rest of the paragraph.
LikeLike
Burnell says:
“Whatever shall be found at last to be so will be found to be all in all. Such is the perception of allness, completeness, wholeness, health, entireness, absoluteness, universality, incomparability; such is truth.”
What Burnell seems to be saying is that any manifestation is absolute in itself. It is discrete.
Does that mean all manifestations are independent of each other? I believe that to be inconsistent with my observations. I see relationships among manifestations.
.
LikeLike
Burnell says:
“What is so plus what is not so about anything equals all there is to it; then canceling what is not so as nothing we have left what is so equals all. Thus truth is the same as allness. Kant announced the allness of truth..”
(What is so) + (What is not so) = all there is to anything
(What is not so) = nothing
Therefore,
(What is so) = all there is to anything
The assumption seems to be
(What is not so) = nothing
What does Burnell mean by that?
.
LikeLike
To me, “what is not so” is part of the filter, and filter exists.
Therefore, we cannot assume “what is not so” is nothing, meaning it can be totally disregarded, or ignored.
Unless, this point is sorted out, it would be a waste of time to look at subsequent axioms from Burnell, because they would all be tainted by this inconsistency.
.
LikeLike
I, The inquiry is into the truth.
II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
IV. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.
There is inconsistency at III. that needs to be sorted out.
.
.
LikeLike
This is where I like the concept of “consideration”.
“What is not so” is a consideration, and it exists as a consideration.
“What is not so” is not nothing. It is not unknowable.
It is knowable as a consideration.
.
LikeLike
1913 Definitions
NOTHING:
1. Not anything; no thing (in the widest sense of the word thing); — opposed to anything and something.
Yet had his aspect nothing of severe. Dryden.
2. Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility; nothingness. Shak.
3. A thing of no account, value, or note; something irrelevant and impertinent; something of comparative unimportance; utter insignificance; a trifle.
Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought. Is. xli. 24.
‘T is nothing, says the fool; but, says the friend,
This nothing, sir, will bring you to your end. Dryden.
4. A cipher; naught.
Nothing but, only; no more than. Chaucer. — To make nothing of. (a) To make no difficulty of; to consider as trifling or important. “We are industrious to preserve our bodies from slavery, but we make nothing of suffering our souls to be slaves to our lusts.” Ray. (b) Not to understand; as, I could make nothing of what he said.
CIPHER:
1. A character [0] which, standing by itself, expresses nothing, but when placed at the right hand of a whole number, increases its value tenfold.
2. One who, or that which, has no weight or influence.
Here he was a mere cipher.
W. Irving.
3. A character in general, as a figure or letter.
[Obs.]
This wisdom began to be written in ciphers and characters and letters bearing the forms of creatures.
Sir W. Raleigh.
LikeLike
So?
.
LikeLike
What is truly weird about all this is that when one pushes down the chain of existence coming at last to quantum we get:
–particle appearing–particle disappearing–
The only way we know it has disappeared is that it is no longer there. We have to refer to it`s past existence to remark that it is no longer appearing. To refer to it as gone, we have to hold an idea of it in place as a character or marker. So in fact we are referring to a marker that stands for the true or real particle. The next time it appears we compare it to our marker and remark that it has appeared again. The marker is now set to 2 times. But the marker is not the particle itself. It is a representation of the particle.
So the sequence is:
Particle appears — call it A so we can refer to it — marker
Particle disappears — we say A is not there, or we say this is MINUS A
Particle appears — oh, look, its A again (but it isn`t A, it just looks like A)
Particle disappears — oh look, its minus A again (not really)
A is not what is. A is a marker and not the particle at all.
LikeLike
So what A represents is the universality and it is the universality we recognize?
LikeLike
1913 FORM: That assemblage or disposition of qualities which makes a conception, or that internal constitution which makes an existing thing to be what it is; — called essential or substantial form, and contradistinguished from matter; hence, active or formative nature; law of being or activity; subjectively viewed, an idea; objectively, a law.
LikeLike
This definition might fit under my axiom on space.
.
LikeLike
what if…..to recognize something we need to assign it universality?
Thinking needs definite values to work with, discrete values which sometimes are even being considered absolute inside the thinking process.
Seems like absolutes can exist inside our mind as frames of reference, but the problem of what is reality cannot be really placed inside any given frame of reference…..or can it?
LikeLike
Absoluteness may manifest as fixation on an idea, as in “fixed ideas”, but this may not translate as ultimate reality.
Similarly, there may be absolute consistency among certain considerations, but that may not translate as ultimate reality either.
Such absoluteness exist in terms of consideration only. In reality, all considerations are manifestations, and any manifestation may be dissolved.
This makes truth to be beyond consideration. Truth would be a recognition of something for what it is. And that dissolves whatever is there into understanding. And there can be deeper and deeper levels of understanding.
Thus, truth would be sort of an operation that generates and dissolves considerations. It is not a consideration in itself.
Unknowable is beyond consideration. This look at truth seems to give us an entry into the realm of unknowable. This is the same concept as as-is-ness. This is the dimension of unknowable.
This is what Buddha is talking about as mindfulness.
Is this what Burnell is saying? His words are confusing to me.
.
LikeLike
I suddenly realized the following:
Corollary: Space, energy, matter and time are the considerations of beingness.
I have made it a corollary to KHTK AXIOM FOUR.
.
LikeLike
And if there is a RWOT?
LikeLike
Is there?
.
LikeLike
Cute but my question was to redirect your attention to consider your corollary in light of there being a real world out there — what if. Your corollary becomes inconsistent if there is a RWOT.
LikeLike
seems like every consideration, to exist, must contain a lie, and therefore all considerations must vanish because they are obscuring the truth. This would be equivalent to full erasure of the hard drive.
LikeLike
Rafael, I’m beginning to see a problem with the word “lie.” At least to the degree that we use it with a negative connotation.
I am seeing the “drift” or tendency to “tend away” from an initial point. It is the fractal math joined with discrete iterations which is the model I am seeing represented by these discussions about truth. The fractal iteration accounts for the alter-isness which we have been taught is the reason for persistence or the lie.
LikeLike
What is the difference between a consideration and a lie?
There is a consideration. We do not know who or what is considering. Shall we call it a consideration or shall we call it a manifestation?
The manifestation obscures the trigger that brought it about. The manifestation of self, for example, seems to replace the trigger, and becomes the Cause of Scientology Factor #1.
For our purposes, that trigger is unknowable. A manifestation becomes a consideration or a lie when it is associated with Cause or Self, or when it is assumed to be extending from Cause or Self.
So, the first level of manifestation is Cause or Self. The next level of manifestation is a consideration. That is lie right there.
Then we have another level of manifestation as alteration of that previous level of consideration. We now call this a lie. We do not look at the previous level of consideration as a lie.
And, how about the primary level of Cause or Self? Isn’t that obscuring the unknowable?
.
LikeLike
All considerations are obscuring AXIOM ZERO
.
LikeLike
Maybe it can if every “frame” is a reality — complete.
LikeLike
Chris could you explain how are you defining a lie? I got lost there.
Is it some type of fractal iteration?
Could it be that the root of the fractal, the basic structure of the fractal, is what creates persistence?
LikeLike
Yes! Funny. You always begin by saying you don’t understand then reiterate what I meant right back to me.
The point on a graph in the complex plane is right there. Then the next point is almost right there but just over. Each iteration the coordinates move.
The alter-is which supposedly “creates” persistence, the “lie of persistence” can be accounted for in this fractal “drift.” Also in Wolfram’s work. And beginning with Alan Turing’s work.
LikeLike
Ha ha ha !! Funny but I sutil don’t understand you Chris !!!(ior maybe I don’t understand myself ha ha ha!)
Is the fractal iteration a moverment in time or a change in other característics of mest or a structural lie which remains constant in all iterations and belongs to their basic structure ?
Or is it all of them ?
I just noticed I always end up my question making my best guess at the answer and also my understanding increases as I formulate the question….. Or maybe I’m becoming Chris Thomson, which would be correct if my last guess was the answer … It is not correct right ?
Now seriously speaking thank you for telling me that I hope I don’t seem to be sarcastic I appreciate you very much and have learned one hell of a lot from you pal. 🙂
I’ll be more careful with my questios in the future 🙂
LikeLike
That’s so funny because it is you whom I learn from. God help you if you become me, then you would have to learn from you and you are already you so talk to yourself! haha
One model; maybe metaphor that I like is the personal computer. It takes discrete little bits and knits those into fractally relational wholes.
Rafael asks: Is the fractal iteration a movement in time?
Chris: Like the personal computer, I think that reality runs on a type of clock speed. This might be the clock speed of a real world out there or it might be the clock speed of my perception; of my wave collapse. There may or may not be a RWOT. Or there might. All this is conjecture. Anyway, there may not be any movement but movement may be an apparency created by quantum jumping.
Electrons quantum jump (Noun: An abrupt transition of an electron, atom, or molecule from one quantum state to another, with absorption or emission of a quantum.) This belies movement. “It is saying the electron is in a state. It did not move. Now it is in another state.”
The coordinates located in the complex plane using fractal geometry are discrete bits. But they flesh out an apparently cohesive whole thing.
LikeLike
Nice example Chris I think I’ve got it now 🙂
LikeLike
Maria, It seems that way to me and this is what we commonly refer to as memory.
LikeLike
Burnell says: What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.
LikeLike
Is Burnell talking about the unknowable?
.
LikeLike
This comment of Burnell’s seems to be consistent to me. It is at once the Unknowable and then having spoken it is not. I think we kind of have to leave it alone at that point.
LikeLike
“IT” is constant, expressed in new form. The form is produced from “IT”?
LikeLike
When a particle disappears, it is assumed that it is gone in an absolute sense. Is that true?
I would think that it has changed form to a potential or something else, but it is not gone completely. It may then appear to its previous form.
Why not?
.
LikeLike
When you delete the information on a hard drive, what you are really doing is overwriting what was there with 0. What was overwritten is still there, but is not available to read. What is now available to read is 0. This is the essence of multiple undo operations.
When you erase information on a hard drive you remove the information completely. It is null. No undo operation is possible.
When you wipe a hard drive, you remove all of the information and the formatting that enables the recording of the information. Until you format the hard drive, you cannot record. There is no recognition function remaining.
When you program information you have to instantiate a memory address in random access memory and then you can swap variables in and out of RAM. When all operations are complete, the result (a series of on and off charges) is impressed onto the hard drive in a fixed location called memory.
On is a positive charge and off is a negative charge. Null is no charge. Remove all of the positive charge and no meaningful information remains. Remove all of the negative charge and no meaningful information remains. i.e. If you bring a powerful magnet into the hard drives vicinity the charge is pulled out of the locations it is stored in. A powerful magnet removes the formatting as well.
Note that through all of these operations, the medium remains, and I guess it could be thought of as the ground state.
It is this very medium that is the subject of the zero-point field, the ground state which fluctuates.
Well, that`s one way of looking at all this which may help but with caution — it is a model.
LikeLike
For me, KHTK AXIOM ZERO provides the “ground state”.
.
LikeLike
A model? Yes I think that computers have unerringly gravitated toward a model of the actual human mind.
LikeLike
Or how about this view:
Particle appears — call it A so we can refer to it
Particle disappears — we say A is not there, or we say this is MINUS A
Particle appears — oh, look, its A again (but it isn`t A, it looks LIKE A)
Particle disappears — oh look, its minus A again (not really)
A is not what is. A is a marker and not the particle at all.
So “A” is a rule or literally SUB-STANCE that informs?
How about this?
The original particle is matter informed by “A”
The marker is matter informed by “A”
The new particle is matter informed by “A”
The “physical” components are not “A” but they are informed by “A”
“A” is constant. It is always the same even though the outward form components are never the same components. Multiples of “A” can appear. They all have “A” in common, but that’s all they have in common because every one of the multiples exists in a different time-space.
When we count, we count instances of “A,” literally appearances of “A” standing in matter or energy.
Instance: IN-STAND (standing in)?
LikeLike
To me “what is not” is not nothing. It exists as a consideration, or marker, or whatever.
.
LikeLike
Yes, and when A appears again, not only will it not be the same A of the previous appearance, but it will be an em>altered form of the previous appearance. This comes as close to truth about MEST as I know.
LikeLike
What difference does it make if it is the same A or not? After all it is just a consideration.
.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your point. Please elaborate.
LikeLike
Let me take another look at Burnell’s Axiom III:
What Burnell seems to be saying is that TRUTH IS THE UNIVERSALITY OF WHAT IS. Beyond that is the unthinkable.
So, truth is limited to all that we can conceive and perceive.
Let me now look at Axiom IV,
.
LikeLike
I, The inquiry is into the truth.
II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
.
IV. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.
The inconsistency that I see right away is that Burnell limits truth to ‘what is’ (manifestation) and then says that truth is that aspect, which does not change.
No aspect of manifestation is ever permanent. So what is truth? Is truth THAT, which is beyond manifestation?
.
LikeLike
I screwed up Vinaire — I thought I had copy pasted Axiom 4 but I accidentally copy pasted Axiom 5 instead. Here is Axiom 4
IV. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity.
Because there is not anything besides what is, with which to divide the truth, since truth is all; truth is not divisible into parts because there is not anything besides the all to put between any such assumed parts.
There can be nothing besides what is with which to establish any distinction or difference. It is an axiom of pure reasoning that a substance cannot be divided into parts unless there is something besides the substance to divide the substance with and to put between the parts so obtained in order to constitute an actual division, separation, or distinction.
If you assume a negative or a “nothing” to accomplish a division your division will be hypothetical only and therefore imaginary. If you assume that the truth might be divided by itself, you assume that the truth might be divided by itself, you assume an unthinkable supposition, and wherever in any science such a division is assumed (as 10 divided by 10) the quotient from such hypothetical division is always pronounced to be one, which is taken to signify that no division can be predicated.
There is nothing different from truth for it to attribute itself to or to be an attribute of it. There is nothing for an attribute to be but what is.
We do not affirm that allness and indivisibility are attributes of truth but that truth is the very same as allness and indivisibility.
In reality there can be no such thing as attribute or quality. Truth is just what it is, not partly what it is but wholly and entirely and exactly what it is.
LikeLike
Burnell seems to have viewed from another space-time when there still were universal truths to be found in principles regarding the world. Einstein hadn’t yet been proven. Quantum mechanics was a weird and fringe idea by “those scientists.”
We will be forming up new or additional universalities but they seem to becoming different from these earlier universalities.
LikeLike
That seems to be consistent.
LikeLike
I’m trying.
LikeLike
Let’s look once again at the thought here: comment-5556.
Truth is not ‘what is’, but a recognition of ‘what is’.
.
LikeLike
This is some of your best work. comment-5556
LikeLike
Yes. It surprised me.
.
LikeLike
No, not by what I am reading here.
LikeLike
I, The inquiry is into the truth.
II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
.
IV. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity..
.
OK. Let’s took at this fix on Axiom IV. I would repeat what i just said a moment ago.
Truth is not ‘what is’, but a recognition of ‘what is’.
Axioms III and IV start to make more sense when this correction is made to Axiom II.
The recognition of ‘what is’ is what Hubbard called as-is-ness, and Buddha called mindfulness. This concept goes beyond consideration and provides us with a window into the unknowable.
.
LikeLike
Strictly speaking, it seems to me that cognition would be as-is-ness, re-cognition would be is-ness. i.e. applying to repetitive patterns of manifestation. Otherwise the RE in recognition is unnecessary.
cognize: to perceive, become conscious of, become aware of, or know.
recognize: To know again; to perceive the identity of, with a person or thing previously known; to recover or recall knowledge of.
LikeLike
Maybe “cognition” goes along with creation; and “recognition” goes along with dissolution.
Just a conjecture…
.
LikeLike
I think we have overcome a major hurdle presented in Axiom II.
.
LikeLike
Truth is not ‘what is’, but a recognition of ‘what is’.
This works nice, (Also with cognition, but recognition could also be understood as knowing again as in the moment of creation) in my experience It goes like this:
When I´m looking, I go from not-is-ness to is-ness, and when I see the lie (or inconsistency), as-is-ness comes, and there is an instant of truth.
So, there are many things that seem to be truth in our way, actually, everything we see “seems to be truth”, and each time we get rid of a lie, we move in the direction of truth.
Is there an absolute truth in the end? Can it be reached?
With what I can see now Burnell might be using truth as an ideal which one does not really have to reach in an absolute way, and which might even not really exist as such.
It would simply be a Lighthouse giving us a direction to follow.
This way I can digest axioms 3, 4 and 5.
Also, with universality, unchangeableness, undivisibility, unity, he seems to be refering to what would be Tone 40 in Scn.
LikeLike
Nicely put and well said. I am so happy to learn this from Burnell. Looks like we have made a great entrance into the unknowable!
.
LikeLike
Yes indeed!, this guy really meant business 🙂
LikeLike
These axioms may very well be one of the original sources of Dianetics and Scientology. Burnell wrote these axioms in 1902. Ernest Holmes, founder of Religious Science and the author of “The Science of Mind; a Complete Course of Lessons in the Science of Mind and spirit.” references Burnell in his 1926 work. That’s how I found Burnell’s works. Burnell wasn’t that well known, but Holmes was HUGE in the New Thought movement and recommends studying Burnell’s works. From what I have studied so far of the New Thought movement, Burnell stands alone in drafting axioms on the subject.
Some well known New Thought writers include James Allen 1902, Dale Carnegie 1936, Ernest Holmes 1926, Napoleon Hill 1937, Norman Vincent Peale (mentored by Holmes), Paramahansa Yogananda 1925. There are many more. Yogananda set up his HQ in Hollywood in the 1920s. The fellowship center is on the same block as the Pac Base to this day. With the exception of Yogananda, many of these writers would likely have been familiar with Burnell’s work.
LikeLike
Knowledge seems to be a network of thoughts, ideas and considerations.
.
LikeLike
Rafael: “as-is-ness comes, and there is an instant of truth.”
Chris: And possibility an end of the duration of that certain frame of reference.
LikeLike
I agree with that Chris, and it is very interesting.. What if all our frames of reference are false?
Why can’t we just discard them all at once and start over again ?
Just to be sure we do it right this time?
I would really like to do a reset like that every time I feel like it …….
LikeLike
I am getting weirded out by this research of what is true; what is false.
My axioms include that we live in a game. Making it as durable as possible was the goal. Nothing sinister, just solid and there so that when you came home from the grocery store, your house would still be there and at the same address.
Now I currently live in a philosophic culture of biology is bad; is temporal. Spiritual is good; is infinite. See?
Vin and Maria and you and Burnell, et al, have pretty well won me over to the consideration game. I don’t know the mechanics at the root but fractal equations work very nicely and neatly for me to understand as-is; is; and alter is. Fractals account for drift or randomity if you rather. Talk about fuzzy! The further I go, the more determinism can account for my existence and I don’t mean just the scenery of self but also the self of self which I guess means that everything is the self. And if everything is self, then the puppet that I am may just be the pinched off piece of a more general self “in the sky.” (I added that last bit “in the sky” for religious reverence.) In other words, I have looked and looked and have not only not falsified determinism (as expected) but have fortified the working concept of it in my mind.
LikeLike
I just realized I’ve lost almost all interest in playing games and my main interest now is understanding games ….. I find it a bit sick. I still have a life here I should put my feet back on earth.
And also when my wife reads this thread will want me to help in the kitchen and all other chores !!! 🙂
LikeLike
You know this is all Vinaire’s fault, right?
LikeLike
Exactly!! 🙂
LikeLike
Now, now, slow down… there is supposed to be light at the end of the tunnel. I am looking for it as best as I can.
.
LikeLike
Rafael: Also, with universality, unchangeableness, undivisibility, unity, he seems to be refering to what would be Tone 40 in Scn.
Chris: Burnell has good analytical power and I read that he also has desire mixed in. Terms like unchangeableness aren’t rooted in looking very closely at manifestation, and smack of desire.
LikeLike
Yeah ! A bright and hopeful soul 🙂
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
By the way, I understand recognition of “what is” as the moment when is-ness becomes as-is-ness
(Ufff we are getting too much into Scientology, better to move off a little)
LikeLike
In response to the following post from Chris
comment-5588
If one recognizes truth as truth, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes lie as lie, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes good as good, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes bad as bad, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes fact as fact, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes opinion as opinion, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes fiction as fiction, it is as-isness.
If one recognizes Life Static as individuality, it is as-isness.
I added the last one about Life Static just for fun. When I came into Scientology, I understood Life Static to be equivalent to “Brahma” or “unknowable.” I did TR0 from the understanding of AXIOM ZERO, looking considerations as manifestations, and letting them appear and disappear as they may. I word cleared people on TRs Course that way with wonderful results. But I was called a squirrel for doing this, and I was heavily corrected by Dennis Ehrlich, who was the Tech Cramming Officer at Flag Land Base at that time. Now I understand why that happened. The first axiom of Scientology was not what I had thought it to be.
I was looking at AXIOM ZERO, which is completely missing in Scientology. Some people may confuse Scientology Axiom One with AXIOM ZERO.
.
LikeLike
The reason I brought up your contextual use of the Scientology word “as-is” comes from Scientology Axiom 11. It states:
AXIOM 11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD.
(a) AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.
(b) ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistency.
(c) IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS. This is called, when agreed upon, Reality.
(d) NOT-IS-NESS is the effort to handle IS-NESS by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an IS-NESS.
When I read your comments, my understanding of this axiom has me to understand that you are using “as-is” when “is” would be correct. Am I mistaken? How so?
LikeLike
This is very interesting. I am not sure if Hubbard is looking at AS-IS-NESS as a consideration or as something beyond consideration. But, to me, AS-IS-NESS is becoming that unknowable trigger and the triggering of a manifestation out of the trigger itself. Here I am not thinking of Cause. I am rather thinking of INTUITION. It just appears out of the blue after percolating for a while in some unknowable region.
I always liked this axiom. Now I must look at it more closely as TRUTH in light of Burnell. That makes TRUTH unknowable. Truth becomes some unknowable process that underlies intuition itself.
.
LikeLike
Is is fleeting.
LikeLike
These conditions of existence can be found to be inconsistent in the following ways:
There is as-is create = something appears. = consistent.
There is as-is destroy = something disappears; however, I think there is only NO as-is create = nothing happens and the previous version of the something appears, disappears with no new as-is create to take its “place-consecutive time.” (play on words for space-time) = inconsistent.
There is alter-is which is really as-is create something else = inconsistent.
There is IS, which is really the apparency and no basis in reality except in unrecognizable briefness. = inconsistent.
LikeLike
To ALTER one must CREATE the alteration. So,
ALTER-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS create another part of IS-NESS
ALTER-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS create a filter to cover IS-NESS
ALTER-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS dissolve a part of IS-NESS
NOT-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS create negation of IS-NESS
Looks like there is a whole spectrum of AS-IS-NESS, one extreme of which is NOT-IS-NESS, and the other extreme is AS-IS dissolve.
.
LikeLike
In a discrete model, as-is dissolve is doing nothing at all = switch off.
In a continuous model, why does the thing change? Because at the molecular level things are deteriorating bit by bit. Are these bits in quantum jumps? If so, there is discreteness.
In the fractal model, fractal iterations account for the bits.
What accounts for the machinery? When I look around me, I see only fractal machinery — really, everywhere, everything.
LikeLike
Now to the meat of your comment of abuse at the hands of your handlers at Flag. My understanding of Scientology Axiom 1 began as and continues as in agreement with your original premise of Brahma and of Unknowable. Regardless of the infinite misunderstandings of this definition, if we read it again using KHTK or other non-judgemental mindfulness, we should be able to do so without the additive of “individuality.” I’ll copy it here:
AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
I do not understand this definition to indicate a number of individuals. It reads “A” as in “A STATIC.” If I understand our previous conversations on this subject, we both view life as a “singularity,” by which is not intended to mean “an individual” but rather the more basic and all encompassing all of the singularity of life.
In the way that I have expressed and tried to explain, Axiom 1 of Scientology remains consistent. Your original understanding remains correct. Your abusive re-education at the hands of the “Mecca of Technical Perfection” remains an abuse and a use of false data.
LikeLike
(I didn’t finish my thought above) “. . . and a use of false data — a NOT-ISNESS“
LikeLike
Let’s discuss this on the thread Comments on Scientology Axioms 1, 2 & 3
.
LikeLike
Ok.
LikeLike
Yeah Chris!
I´m with you (and with Vin also) on this, we are reaching harmony.
We should look more closely… can we?
I´m getting dizzy, time to stop thinking and start looking……..
LikeLike
LOL! That is ticklish indeed!
.
LikeLike
In response to the following post from Chris
comment-5592
“Cute but my question was to redirect your attention to consider your corollary in light of there being a real world out there — what if. Your corollary becomes inconsistent if there is a RWOT.”
This is getting into speculation. If there is a real world out there, the time to look at it is now.
.
LikeLike
In response to the following post from Chris
comment-5593
V: “Discreteness reminds me of an electron which is mostly concentrated in the center but boundaries extend to infinity.”
Chris: “I understand your words but am missing your metaphor – please say more.”
One may look at an electron as discrete, but is fuzzy at the boundaries. It may be counted as discrete items can be counted, but its identity is fuzzy in terms of being a particle or a wave.
So, things may appear to be discrete but when looked at closely, that clarity of discreteness seems to become fuzzy..
.
LikeLike
Ah, ok I get you.
To get that fuzziness to clear up, we have to look more closely. What comes into focus will probably be surprising.
I wanted to reply and offer something to contribute but when I looked for a reference to support my idea all I did was stick myself in the immense fog of my misunderstanding.
LikeLike
Ha… ha! I know what you mean. You are not alone.
.
LikeLike
Not at all Ha ha ha!!!
LikeLike
In response to the following post from Chris
comment-5571
V: “What difference does it make if it is the same A or not? After all it is just a consideration..”
Chris: “I don’t understand your point. Please elaborate..”
Again, for me, it is searching for the underlying reality… the common denominator.
We are looking at particle appearing and disappearing. The question that comes in my mind is, “What is this phenomenon of appearing and disappearing?” I am not so much thinking about the particle, because it could be anything. Whether it is the same particle or not is insignificant to me from the viewpoint I am looking at. I want to understand the deeper meaning of appearing and disappearing.
It is looking at the phenomenon of manifestation, regardless of the particular identity of a manifestation. All considerations seem to appear all at once at the point of manifestation. Awareness of a manifestation also seems to appear with the manifestation.
When a particle appears, the awareness of that particle appears with it. When a particle disappears, the awareness of the particle disappears with it. What may carry on is some other manifestation.
.
LikeLike
Ah. Ok very good, I am following you.
Mike Silverman was a registrar at AOLA for many years and also an amazing magician. He did “slight of hand” out of this world. But I digress. When he made a coin appear and disappear, and assuming he wasn’t substituting a really different coin, if there is a RWOT, he was using the same coin. Yet we argue that at the root, the coin is a different coin every moment.
Previously, if I were describing your view on this to others, I would say that you think there is a RWOT because of your negative comments about discreteness. However, my current questioning of you about this is because I am understanding a shift in your view. It isn’t clear to me where you are trying to stand. Can you explain this to me? (the change in you)
LikeLike
I don’t think I am taking any stand here. The scene seems to shift as one looks more and more closely. Nothing seems to be fixed.
We all are evolving as we discuss.
.
LikeLike
Looks like this is what we have so far:
I, The inquiry is into the truth.
II. By truth is meant [the recognition of] what is; such is the perception of spirit.
III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
IV. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity.
V. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.
Does this seem to be consistent so far?
.
LikeLike
To tell you the truth, this discussion is turning out to be more than I even hoped for! So far I have not been able to detect any flaw in reason and at least part of the perplexity I have experienced has dissipated – I like where this is going, and the insights from you, Chris and Rafael. Nice!
You said it yourself Vinaire: The scene seems to shift as one looks more and more closely. Nothing seems to be fixed. We all are evolving as we discuss.
I like that. It seems that way to me too.
LikeLike
LOL! The anonymous was me! I didn’t realize I had not filled in my info and when I pressed submit the post disappeared!
LikeLike
I´m just a dog with a bone!!
LikeLike
A happy dog?
.
LikeLike
Sure! 🙂
How’d the interview go?
LikeLike
Fine! Hope to find the result by tomorrow.
.
LikeLike
@Anonymous Maria, Me too!
LikeLike