Basic Metaphysics 101

[WanderingLands]

After a couple of months of contemplating on existence and the Mind and reading up on the philosophies of Rationalism, Existentialism, Platonism, and looking into Esotericism and Occultism, I have decided to lay down the basics of Metaphysics, that is, at least as established by my findings. During my time on this forum, I have went into some Metaphysics, with two threads on here called "The Metaphysical Papers", and "MA'AT PHI PSYCHE".

* MA'AT PHI PSYCHE: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12761
* The Metaphysical Papers: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12225

Other threads include:

* Pythagorean Mystic: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12484
* The Cube: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12480
* Geometry Work: forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12482
* Rosicrucians: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12372
* Nominalism vs Realism and Metaphysics of René Guénon: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12362

Threads beyond the Metaphysics section, and are also noteworthy:

* Goetia Occultum: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12983
* New Chart, for Descartes (Philosophy in Ecolang.): viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12987
* A Social Organism: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12825
* Eco Language (by Lee A. Arnold): viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12648

Now that I've been talking about many of the concepts to the people of this forum since I have been on here, it is now about time that I bring in the exact basics of my inquiry into Metaphysics.

The Ultimate Truth, which is the Ultimate Axiom that has been held by many philosophers and many religions of the past, is:

The ALL is ONE, & the ONE is ALL.

The explanation for this Axiom is that the entire existence, all of us, are in fact made up of a single substance, which is the Life Force or prana, which comes from the One Thing, or the "Source" as I call it.



Notice this picture above. The dot is a representation of the "Unmanifest Absolute", where there is Pure Energy; the entire circle within is the "Manifest Absolute", in which all of the Pure Energy is manifested as existence, which is one big circle (meaning that we are all One, hence this symbol that I have shown you).

More shall be elaborated tomorrow.

[Arising_uk]

...
Threads beyond the Metaphysics section, and are also noteworthy:

Says you.

...
More shall be elaborated tomorrow.

Please, spare us!

[WanderingLands]

Wonderful weather we're having eh, Sir Arising of the UK?

[Arising_uk]

Love it myself as 1) at least its not cold and 2) many in the world would kill for such weather.

[Impenitent]

metaphysics for boobs?

-Imp

e.d. perhaps monads are boobs...

[Ginkgo]

After a couple of months of contemplating on existence and the Mind and reading up on the philosophies of Rationalism, Existentialism, Platonism, and looking into Esotericism and Occultism, I have decided to lay down the basics of Metaphysics, that is, at least as established by my findings. During my time on this forum, I have went into some Metaphysics, with two threads on here called "The Metaphysical Papers", and "MA'AT PHI PSYCHE".

* MA'AT PHI PSYCHE: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12761
* The Metaphysical Papers: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12225

Other threads include:

* Pythagorean Mystic: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12484
* The Cube: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12480
* Geometry Work: forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12482
* Rosicrucians: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12372
* Nominalism vs Realism and Metaphysics of René Guénon: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12362

Threads beyond the Metaphysics section, and are also noteworthy:

* Goetia Occultum: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12983
* New Chart, for Descartes (Philosophy in Ecolang.): viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12987
* A Social Organism: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12825
* Eco Language (by Lee A. Arnold): viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12648

Now that I've been talking about many of the concepts to the people of this forum since I have been on here, it is now about time that I bring in the exact basics of my inquiry into Metaphysics.

The Ultimate Truth, which is the Ultimate Axiom that has been held by many philosophers and many religions of the past, is:

The ALL is ONE, & the ONE is ALL.

The explanation for this Axiom is that the entire existence, all of us, are in fact made up of a single substance, which is the Life Force or prana, which comes from the One Thing, or the "Source" as I call it.



Notice this picture above. The dot is a representation of the "Unmanifest Absolute", where there is Pure Energy; the entire circle within is the "Manifest Absolute", in which all of the Pure Energy is manifested as existence, which is one big circle (meaning that we are all One, hence this symbol that I have shown you).

More shall be elaborated tomorrow.

When it comes to metaphysics it is not possible to derive a single axiom and covers the discipline There have been many metaphysical theories over the centuries that proclaim a single truth. The problem is that different theories proclaim different truths. It is possible for two different metaphysicians to tackle the same question and come up with completely different answers. In fact, history has shown that some of these theories are contradictory.

When we talk about metaphysics we should be talking about metaphysics of permanence and change, metaphysics of substance, metaphysics of time and space, etc.

[Ginkgo]

After a couple of months of contemplating on existence and the Mind and reading up on the philosophies of Rationalism, Existentialism, Platonism, and looking into Esotericism and Occultism, I have decided to lay down the basics of Metaphysics, that is, at least as established by my findings. During my time on this forum, I have went into some Metaphysics, with two threads on here called "The Metaphysical Papers", and "MA'AT PHI PSYCHE".

* MA'AT PHI PSYCHE: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12761
* The Metaphysical Papers: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12225

Other threads include:

* Pythagorean Mystic: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12484
* The Cube: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12480
* Geometry Work: forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12482
* Rosicrucians: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12372
* Nominalism vs Realism and Metaphysics of René Guénon: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12362

Threads beyond the Metaphysics section, and are also noteworthy:

* Goetia Occultum: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12983
* New Chart, for Descartes (Philosophy in Ecolang.): viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12987
* A Social Organism: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12825
* Eco Language (by Lee A. Arnold): viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12648

Now that I've been talking about many of the concepts to the people of this forum since I have been on here, it is now about time that I bring in the exact basics of my inquiry into Metaphysics.

The Ultimate Truth, which is the Ultimate Axiom that has been held by many philosophers and many religions of the past, is:

The ALL is ONE, & the ONE is ALL.

The explanation for this Axiom is that the entire existence, all of us, are in fact made up of a single substance, which is the Life Force or prana, which comes from the One Thing, or the "Source" as I call it.



Notice this picture above. The dot is a representation of the "Unmanifest Absolute", where there is Pure Energy; the entire circle within is the "Manifest Absolute", in which all of the Pure Energy is manifested as existence, which is one big circle (meaning that we are all One, hence this symbol that I have shown you).

More shall be elaborated tomorrow.

When it comes to metaphysics it is not possible to derive a single axiom and covers the discipline There have been many metaphysical theories over the centuries proclaiming a single truth. The problem is that different theories proclaim different truths. It is possible for two different metaphysicians to tackle the same question and come up with completely different answers. In fact, history has shown that some of these theories are contradictory.

When we talk about metaphysics we should be talking about metaphysics of permanence and change, metaphysics of substance, metaphysics of time and space, etc.

[uwot]

The Ultimate Truth, which is the Ultimate Axiom that has been held by many philosophers and many religions of the past, is:

The ALL is ONE, & the ONE is ALL.

Other philosophers and religions are available. It is selective reading to choose only those that support your thesis.

The explanation for this Axiom is that the entire existence, all of us, are in fact made up of a single substance,

Well, one way to interpret the Big Bang theory is that one single thing started out very tiny and is currently very big.

which is the Life Force or prana, which comes from the One Thing, or the "Source" as I call it.

Call it what you like. Given that the vast bulk of the universe doesn't appear to be alive in the way a thin layer on this small planet is, what leads you to believe that the "Source" is the Life Force.

Notice this picture above.

It's not easily missed, but I didn't think it necessary to show again.

The dot is a representation of the "Unmanifest Absolute",

In the words of Milli the Almighty: More to wisdom that speaking like Yoda there is. You can populate your story with characters and entities of your choice. What happens with people like you is that they fool themselves into believing that a coherent narrative is synonymous with the Truth. You have made up a story. It's a bit like some others.

where there is Pure Energy; the entire circle within is the "Manifest Absolute", in which all of the Pure Energy is manifested as existence, which is one big circle (meaning that we are all One, hence this symbol that I have shown you).

It is a circle with a dot in it.

[WanderingLands]

Other philosophers and religions are available. It is selective reading to choose only those that support your thesis.

I do acknowledge that.

Well, one way to interpret the Big Bang theory is that one single thing started out very tiny and is currently very big.

The Big Bang theory is [not] (forgot to add that word) true. If it was true, then it would be needed for it to have a Creator, and for that it would be needed for another universe; which there is no evidence for other universes at that time. Unless if there's explanation for that, than the Big Bang theory is bunk and contradicts the conservation laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... physics%29

Call it what you like. Given that the vast bulk of the universe doesn't appear to be alive in the way a thin layer on this small planet is, what leads you to believe that the "Source" is the Life Force.

That is actually not true when you account for the fact that all things need energy to survive. Also worth mentioning are the discovery of lava on Mars (there's also been some discovery of water, too, although a recent article called, "Lava, Not Water, Created Mars' Topography", is seemingly challenging this); the electric craters on the Moon by British scientist Brian J. Ford and Nobel Prize wining Plasma scientist Hannes Alfven; Hexagonal Craters found on Mercury which goes together with the idea that craters are electric.

Sources: http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... raters.htm
https://www.google.com/#q=water+on+mars
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/12 ... raters.htm

In the words of Milli the Almighty: More to wisdom that speaking like Yoda there is. You can populate your story with characters and entities of your choice. What happens with people like you is that they fool themselves into believing that a coherent narrative is synonymous with the Truth. You have made up a story. It's a bit like some others.

I am not talking about a religious story or mythos (nor am I creating one); I'm talking of the essence of those Religions which is the emanationist Metaphysical cosmology (in a sense that it talks about the whole of the Universe).

It is a circle with a dot in it.

It is actually an alchemical symbol for the Sun, and according to Freemason Albert Pike, the representation of the phallus (dot) and the vagina (circle) in union. There may be many other meanings, but I call the dot the "Unmanifest Absolute", or the Source of Pure Energy, and the circle the "Manifest Absolute", or the entire existence.

[Ginkgo]

The Big Bang theory saying nothing about the creation of the universe as such. In other words, it is not an explanation for nothing then there was something, so it doesn't contradict conservation of energy laws.

The recent discovery of gravity waves lend support to the Big Bang theory and the inflationary period. It also lends a little bit of support for a multiverse theory.

[WanderingLands]

The Big Bang theory saying nothing about the creation of the universe as such. In other words, it is not an explanation for nothing then there was something, so it doesn't contradict conservation of energy laws.

The recent discovery of gravity waves lend support to the Big Bang theory and the inflationary period. It also lends a little bit of support for a multiverse theory.

If everything came from nothing, then where does the conservation of energy laws apply, and also, where does the rule of Causation apply? If everything came from nothing by chance, then causation wouldn't exist and neither would the conservation of energy laws. Yet, we are always moving, and thus have energy, and there's always a cause that applies in philosophy, metaphysics, and science. So that means that the Big Bang is wrong.

Also, gravity is a concept to explain how things, such as you and me, are "grounded" down on Earth instead of floating through empty space, so I don't see how these "gravity waves" you talk of prove the Big Bang theory, and I don't understand how it lends support to the multiverse theory, when gravity is simply a concept about how we stay grounded on Earth.

As a matter of fact, waves are energy, and a wave travels eternally, so that also disproves the Big Bang theory.

[uwot]

The Big Bang theory is (not?) true.

The thing about the Big Bang theory is that it is a bit of rationalisation from some empirical data. Edwin Hubble noticed that the light from all but a few local galaxies is red shifted. The easiest way to explain this is the Doppler effect. When objects are moving away from you the frequency of any waves they emit decreases because each wave has to travel further to reach you than the one before. Red is at the lower end of the visible spectrum, thus anything moving away from you is red shifted. It doesn't take a genius to work out that since everything in the universe is getting further apart, it used to be closer together. It took a catholic priest to work out that it quite possibly all came from the same spot. He was Georges Lemaitre, he called the "Source" the cosmic egg.
The Big Bang theory is a very good theory. It accounts for the phenomenon neatly, but it is the red shift that we 'know'. You can look at it every night of the year. The rest is rationalisation, the stuff you think is a source of knowledge.

If it was true, then it would be needed for it to have a Creator,

Funnily enough, that's what Lemaitre said, prompting Fred Hoyle to come up with the rival Steady State theory, dismissing the Cosmic Egg as a big bang. It doesn't follow though. Why do you think it does?

[Ginkgo]

The Big Bang theory saying nothing about the creation of the universe as such. In other words, it is not an explanation for nothing then there was something, so it doesn't contradict conservation of energy laws.

The recent discovery of gravity waves lend support to the Big Bang theory and the inflationary period. It also lends a little bit of support for a multiverse theory.

If everything came from nothing, then where does the conservation of energy laws apply, and also, where does the rule of Causation apply? If everything came from nothing by chance, then causation wouldn't exist and neither would the conservation of energy laws. Yet, we are always moving, and thus have energy, and there's always a cause that applies in philosophy, metaphysics, and science. So that means that the Big Bang is wrong.

Also, gravity is a concept to explain how things, such as you and me, are "grounded" down on Earth instead of floating through empty space, so I don't see how these "gravity waves" you talk of prove the Big Bang theory, and I don't understand how it lends support to the multiverse theory, when gravity is simply a concept about how we stay grounded on Earth.

As a matter of fact, waves are energy, and a wave travels eternally, so that also disproves the Big Bang theory.

It is difficult to some this up in a few paragraphs but there is plenty of reliable information if you search for it. It has been worked out that the total energy of the universe is zero, so the universe is actually the ultimate free lunch. The conservation of laws are not violated in this type of universe. If you like I can find you some links.

Causation as we normally understand it as occurring in time and space does not apply at the quantum level. In fact particles pop in and out of existence, so quickly they don't violate the conservation of energy laws.

You appear to be talking about two types of causation as though they are one and the same. The scientific causation you are talking about is somewhat different to the type of causation you are talking about when you talk metaphysics.

Gravity is not a simple concept, it is still one of the mysteries of science. This would require a lot of explanation.


It all depends on what we mean by the term "nothing". In terms of the Big Bang and a universe from nothing the problem of first cause is meaningless.

I am not sure what you mean by energy and waves traveling eternally.

[WanderingLands]

The thing about the Big Bang theory is that it is a bit of rationalisation from some empirical data. Edwin Hubble noticed that the light from all but a few local galaxies is red shifted. The easiest way to explain this is the Doppler effect. When objects are moving away from you the frequency of any waves they emit decreases because each wave has to travel further to reach you than the one before. Red is at the lower end of the visible spectrum, thus anything moving away from you is red shifted. It doesn't take a genius to work out that since everything in the universe is getting further apart, it used to be closer together. It took a catholic priest to work out that it quite possibly all came from the same spot. He was Georges Lemaitre, he called the "Source" the cosmic egg.
The Big Bang theory is a very good theory. It accounts for the phenomenon neatly, but it is the red shift that we 'know'. You can look at it every night of the year. The rest is rationalisation, the stuff you think is a source of knowledge.

First of all, the Doppler Effect is mainly about the relation of distance and the frequency of waves; it does not mean that waves cease to exist, or that waves don't exist until you experience it, and so it does not mean that the Universe is finite or expanding. There are other causes to a red shift, as observed by astronomer Halton Arp, so the red shift and the Doppler Effect does not disprove the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory makes absolutely no sense; not even empiricism or rationalism would validate this theory. The Universe cannot at all expand without any force, and cannot create itself under any force. If it was true (which it isn't), then it would contradict the conservation of energy laws, because in order to have conservation, energy must always exist. Since the conservation laws say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then how can energy come from nothing? If this Universe is finite, then it would have to be created by another force, so if this was true, then you may have a "Big Bang theory", while still not contradicting the conservation laws. However, there is no evidence for another Universe, as this one is already vast, and the Big Bang theory does not say that the Universe was created but expanded (which contradicts the rule of Causation, Conservation, and even contradicts its own title, the "Big Bang theory"). So, in conclusion, the Big Bang theory is not real, and is not well founded by any means.

Funnily enough, that's what Lemaitre said, prompting Fred Hoyle to come up with the rival Steady State theory, dismissing the Cosmic Egg as a big bang. It doesn't follow though. Why do you think it does?

I am not proposing that theory at all; my view of existence and the universe is that it is eternal, and always has been eternal. The Universe is not expanding, and I do not agree with neither one of those theories that you've presented.

[Ginkgo]

The Big Bang theory makes absolutely no sense; not even empiricism or rationalism would validate this theory. The Universe cannot at all expand without any force, and cannot create itself under any force. If it was true (which it isn't), then it would contradict the conservation of energy laws, because in order to have conservation, energy must always exist. Since the conservation laws say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then how can energy come from nothing? If this Universe is finite, then it would have to be created by another force, so if this was true, then you may have a "Big Bang theory", while still not contradicting the conservation laws. However, there is no evidence for another Universe, as this one is already vast, and the Big Bang theory does not say that the Universe was created but expanded (which contradicts the rule of Causation, Conservation, and even contradicts its own title, the "Big Bang theory"). So, in conclusion, the Big Bang theory is not real, and is not well founded by any means.

.
A couple of points that might help

The universe does create expansion without contradicting the laws of conservation.

It is not the objects in universe that are moving away at an every increase rate it is actually the space in between these objects that is expanding.

If the total energy of the universe is zero then we live in a flat universe, so the universe will keep expanding forever.