Dialoguing - A Neo-Buddhist and a Symbiotic Panentheist
Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.
‘Separation through inclusion’ II
[050610 cg] I am uncertain as to how to understand your diagram 050605. I expect that where there are figures within larger figures that it indicates that the larger figure includes the smaller figure. …
[050611 djs] Correct
[050610 cg continues] … For example, if I draw a circle labeled "animals" and then I draw a smaller circles within that circle and label one "reptiles" and the other "mammals", that diagram would represent that the category animals includes sub-categories reptiles and mammals, that reptiles and mammals possess features in common with (all) animals, and that reptiles and mammals possess other features that can be differentiated.You have, for example, the largest rectangle labeled "The Unmanifested", but it contains smaller figures of categories that are manifested, such as "individual entities of consciousness", The Physical, etc. Are you suggesting that the manifested is included in The Unmanifested? …
[050611 djs] Correct
[050613 cg] Either I do not understand your use of the term 'The Unmanifested' or I do not understand your logic. If 'the manifested' equals A and not-A equals 'The Unmanifested', then how does A exist in not-A?
[050615 djs] ‘The manifested’ may equal A and ‘The Unmanifested’ may equal not-A but that does not automatically imply A does not lie within not-A. I grant you that Russell’s introduction of the paradox regarding elements that are not members of sets is intriguing and may have been irresolvable to date, but I will also risk being considered arrogant by telling you that Russell’s paradox is resolvable if one thinks out of the box and replaces the concept of ‘separation through exclusion’ with the concept of ‘separation through inclusion’ (see below) The interesting result of such thinking is the development of an understanding that ‘nothingness’ both exists and has functionality. [050610 cg continues] … How so? [050613 cg] You identify a process, which you label 'separation through inclusion', and its opposite, but you do not define or describe the process or even suggest how it answers the question.
[050615 djs] The trilogy, The War and Piece of a New Metaphysical Perception, addresses the concept of ‘separation through inclusion’ in detail. Tractate 9: 1970 AD The Error of Russell: Resolving the problem of ‘Separation Through Exclusion’. The work is found in the library of my web site, www.panentheism.com. You can also use the web site search engine powered by Google. Type in ‘separation through inclusion’ to begin the search. If you have specific questions I would be more than willing to discuss the issue but it is very technical and not intended for short term dialoguing. Having said this, I can state that in essence the concept purports a metaphysical discussion of the whole of Reality can stand on the principle that there is such a concept of The Whole/a Universal Set/a Set which includes all elements within itself. The Tractate resolves the philosophical paradox Russell introduced to philosophy regarding ‘elements that are not members of a set’, which in essence philosophically duplicates the paradox introduced by religions when they refer to ‘G-d transcending …’ The process provides the basis upon which the ‘unmanifested’ is capable of ‘including’ all (good, evil, consciousness, non-consciousness, existence, non-existence, a void (nothingness), a lack of a void. My apologies but the concept is not an easy one yet is an easy one. I would be happy to discuss it if you wish. I would initiate the discussion with: The Whole of Reality includes all that exists and all that does not exist. [050610 cg continues] … You have, as another example, a large rectangle labeled "Total Consciousness" and a smaller circle labeled "The Physical" within that rectangle. Are you suggesting that The Physical is included in Total Consciousness? [050610 cg continues] … How so? What common features does The Physical possess with Total Consciousness?
[050611 djs] The process is identified by the phrase 'separation through inclusion' as opposed to religious, philosophical, and scientific process identified by the phrase 'separation through exclusion'.
[050611 djs] Yes
[050611 djs] The physical is experienced by discrete entities journeying through the physical. These discrete entities of consciousness later (time is only found as an element of the universal fabric of the physical) merge with the totality of consciousness while retaining their unique individuality, thus nothing is lost.
[050613 cg] You have not answered my question.
[050615 djs] Sorry let me try again: For me personally the most interesting answer is: None. The other possibility is: Everything.
The first answer provides the means of understanding answers to questions raised by paradoxes regarding ‘nothingness’. The second answer raises a myriad questions generated by paradoxes regarding ‘nothingness’.
I, like Ockham, prefer the simple model which is capable of answering questions as opposed to the complex model which is incapable of answering questions.
[050610 cg continues] … As the circles of both The Physical and "individual entities of knowing" are within the rectangle of Total Consciousness what common features do they share?
[050611 djs] None, however, the one - individuated entities of knowing (the types we are familiar with, namely: human) 'use' the physical body as a medium through which they experience the physical.
[050613 cg] If The Physical and "individual entities of knowing" do not share any common features, why are they within the rectangle of Total Consciousness?
[050615 djs] Although the model of Reality outlined by symbiotic panentheism suggests it is possible that The Physical and ‘individuated entities of knowing’ do not share any common features with each other, they are both placed within the rectangle of Total Consciousness because they both exist within Total Consciousness.
But why does sp not ‘suggest that’ as opposed to ‘unequivocally state that’ The Physical and ‘individuated entities of knowing’ do not share any common features? The issue of The Physical having ‘consciousness’ or not having ‘consciousness’ is not important to what the model is capable of demonstrating to our specie, namely: It is possible to produce a universal philosophy which is capable of acting as the foundation, acting as the trunk, from which all our religions, philosophies, and sciences can branch.
The ground from which the trunk springs is rationality. The root system which holds the trunk in place within the ground is the wisdom religions, sciences, and philosophies have generated over the course their human development.
At this point, I would like to emphasize again: The concept of the physical having consciousness or not having consciousness are both easily incorporated into the concept of sp and thus have no impact to exert upon the model although the model of sp has a great deal to say regarding both possibilities and in particular sp has the most to say about the concept: The Physical has no consciousness.