Protagoras vs Socrates

[Veritas Aequitas]

Man as the measure of all things necessitates all being as submitting to a singular source, thus all is connected through man as the singular source.

Rhetoric again, why do you bring in the term 'submitting'.

Reality is deterministic [not in the absolute sense], thus man is part and parcel of reality.

The point is whatever is to be realized and asserted about reality [the only way] inevitably involved man.
This is what is meant by "man is the measure of all thing" thus to exclude there is anything independent of man within reality which man is part and parcel thereof.

The alternative view to the above enable man to speculate on an independent world, seek salvation in an independent heaven via an entity, i.e. God which is a catalyst to all theistic related terrible evil and violence.

And this determinism is an interpretation of one part relating to another thus necessitating man as measure given interpretation occurs through man. A deterministic universe is the interpretation of man and to argue man is a part of it is to argue existence as a singular source. This singular source of existences exists through interpretation as interpretation, as definition is existence, thus necessitating man as the singular source.

Heaven and Hell are both emergent phenomenon of reality connected by the emergent interpretations of reality.

In a way 'man is the singular source' but that cannot be taken absolutely.

You got it wrong by reducing the whole issue to interpretation by man, presumably you implied existence of reality is an interpretation by man. Nope!

What is reality is an emergent that cannot be independent of man, thus man is part and parcel of that reality. This is the point of Protagoras, i.e. man is part and parcel reality as it is.

Since man is self-aware and has an intellect, man can thereafter interpret reality but such interpretation is not the-reality-as-it-is.

What is reality-as-it-is is just 'is' which cannot be spoken.
Because whatever is spoken is qualified as such cannot be reality-as-it-is.
Thus as Wittgenstein asserted,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Thus as far as what-really-is, one must 'shut up'.

If one must speak of reality-as-it-is, then it must be qualified as 'man is the measured of all things'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

V A

It is not to avoid experiencing the question of mortality which is inevitable and unavoidable.
The question and seeking of meaning is driven by that cognitive dissonance arising from

• 1. the inevitable and unavoidable mortality and

2. the inescapable terrible pain and sufferings because man is endowed with an unavoidable self-awareness
, thus aware of 1.

These two unavoidabilities [cognitive dissonance] drive man to seek meaning to reconcile the logically "irreconcilable" 1 and 2.

The understand of "meaning" would then be a consolation to the cognitive dissonance.

OK so humanity experiencing this question of mortality in the presence of certain death seeks the meaning of life and if Man can avoid physical death.

That is no question of "if Man can avoid physical death" because realistically there is 'nothing' after mortality.

What is real is the existential cognitive dissonance within ALL humans which must be addressed.
It is only if one cannot resolve the cognitive dissonance realistically that one speculate the afterlife or cling to some reified illusion as real.
Many will turn to drugs, alcohols, pain-killers, various diverting activities to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential cognitive dissonance.

Those who cling to the afterlife will resort to the reasoned omni-whatever being who is powerful enough [in their mind] to assure them eternal life in heaven.
Those who cling to some reified illusion as real to fill the gap will resort to the higher reality of the ONE.

How can we approach the question?
Is there a greater reality that determines our life and death, a rational conscious purpose for life created by a conscious source.
Does critical thinking help understanding this question?

It is because of the unresolved cognitive dissonance that drive [compel] one to speculate on some kind of "greater reality" which will comfort and soothe one's disturbed mind.

You can feel that yourself where you feel comfort with your existing views and discomfort and unease on anything otherwise? Agree?
So why you are sticking to your view is not because it is rational and objective, but rather because it is psychologically more comforting and you have no means to seek alternatives to deal with the very pressing uncompromising cognitive dissonance.

What you speculated, i.e. "a rational conscious purpose for life created by a conscious source" if you reflect deeply is merely pseudo-rational.

Note Kant's on this;

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
CPR A339 B397

The above is what Plato did and what you are trying to do, i.e. ascribe objective reality to an inevitable illusion based on pseudo-rationality.

Here is what Kant accused Plato of, reifying illusion without grounds;

Misled 1 by such a proof of the Power of Reason, the demand for the extension of Knowledge recognises no Limits.
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty Space.

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
A5B9

Kant stated some may be able to understand the illusion but only temporary because the cognitive dissonance is a very powerful primal force, thus pull many back to cling to the illusion, the afterlife and the ONE.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR A339 B397

So as far as ultimate reality is concern, Plato's view is a no go.

“When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.” Simone Weil

The door opens to the experience of noesis: The (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)

Socratic discussion allows us to welcome contradictions not to avoid them but to experience them as we welcome the experience of noesis through conscious contemplation. What good is saying that Man is the measure of all things if we don’t know what Man is; we haven’t experienced ourselves through conscious impartial efforts to “know thyself.”

When the door is opened, the consequences of blinded noesis could mislead you to the uninhibited roaming to la la land, like what Plato did, i.e.

The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty Space.

According to Kant this is what happened, which is so evident in our forum by many when pressured by the uncompromising cognitive dissonance within;

It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
CPR A339 B397

What is most practical is, we have the faculty of critical thinking which is better used to explore whatever reality-there-is on the basis of the empirical and the philosophical to optimize the individual's well being and therefrom contribute to the well being of humanity.
This is not a theory, but a practice carried by Buddhism and other spirituality since >2500 years ago.

[Eodnhoj7]

Rhetoric again, why do you bring in the term 'submitting'.

Reality is deterministic [not in the absolute sense], thus man is part and parcel of reality.

The point is whatever is to be realized and asserted about reality [the only way] inevitably involved man.
This is what is meant by "man is the measure of all thing" thus to exclude there is anything independent of man within reality which man is part and parcel thereof.

The alternative view to the above enable man to speculate on an independent world, seek salvation in an independent heaven via an entity, i.e. God which is a catalyst to all theistic related terrible evil and violence.

And this determinism is an interpretation of one part relating to another thus necessitating man as measure given interpretation occurs through man. A deterministic universe is the interpretation of man and to argue man is a part of it is to argue existence as a singular source. This singular source of existences exists through interpretation as interpretation, as definition is existence, thus necessitating man as the singular source.

Heaven and Hell are both emergent phenomenon of reality connected by the emergent interpretations of reality.

In a way 'man is the singular source' but that cannot be taken absolutely.

You got it wrong by reducing the whole issue to interpretation by man, presumably you implied existence of reality is an interpretation by man. Nope!

What is reality is an emergent that cannot be independent of man, thus man is part and parcel of that reality. This is the point of Protagoras, i.e. man is part and parcel reality as it is.

Since man is self-aware and has an intellect, man can thereafter interpret reality but such interpretation is not the-reality-as-it-is.

What is reality-as-it-is is just 'is' which cannot be spoken.
Because whatever is spoken is qualified as such cannot be reality-as-it-is.
Thus as Wittgenstein asserted,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Thus as far as what-really-is, one must 'shut up'.

If one must speak of reality-as-it-is, then it must be qualified as 'man is the measured of all things'.

The interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur.

[Nick_A]

V A

It is because of the unresolved cognitive dissonance that drive [compel] one to speculate on some kind of "greater reality" which will comfort and soothe one's disturbed mind.

You can feel that yourself where you feel comfort with your existing views and discomfort and unease on anything otherwise? Agree?
So why you are sticking to your view is not because it is rational and objective, but rather because it is psychologically more comforting and you have no means to seek alternatives to deal with the very pressing uncompromising cognitive dissonance.

What you speculated, i.e. "a rational conscious purpose for life created by a conscious source" if you reflect deeply is merely pseudo-rational.

But what proof do you have that cognitive dissonance causes a person to contemplate a reality greater than his own? What if it is true but those who haven’t experienced it violently reject it? From Plato’s cave

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

You could just as easily be a person who has had an experience of higher mind or one lacking experience and mocking him to death. You have given no evidence.

A person who has had an experienced is capable of deductive reason while one without experience is limited to inductive reason.

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

Secularism being only concerned with reactive life in the world is unconcerned with the conscious potential for our inner life which is an attribute of objective human meaning and purpose. It becomes hostile to deductive reason since it blocks itself from it. I thank the powers that be that impartial conscious contemplation and its tool of deductive reason, though outside of the mainstream, is still alive in the world

So in reality only the person who has had a direct experience can know. Of course it is true that the experience can devolve into eikasia or sheer conjecture but this doesn’t deny the experience

What is most practical is, we have the faculty of critical thinking which is better used to explore whatever reality-there-is on the basis of the empirical and the philosophical to optimize the individual's well being and therefrom contribute to the well being of humanity.
This is not a theory, but a practice carried by Buddhism and other spirituality since >2500 years ago.

But Again you ignore the limitations of critical thinking. When built on a foundation of prejudice, it loses its value. The dialectic can lead us to contradictions which if viewed impartially can open us to the truth beyond opinions which can be remembered by intuition.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

[Eodnhoj7]

V A

It is because of the unresolved cognitive dissonance that drive [compel] one to speculate on some kind of "greater reality" which will comfort and soothe one's disturbed mind.

You can feel that yourself where you feel comfort with your existing views and discomfort and unease on anything otherwise? Agree?
So why you are sticking to your view is not because it is rational and objective, but rather because it is psychologically more comforting and you have no means to seek alternatives to deal with the very pressing uncompromising cognitive dissonance.

What you speculated, i.e. "a rational conscious purpose for life created by a conscious source" if you reflect deeply is merely pseudo-rational.

But what proof do you have that cognitive dissonance causes a person to contemplate a reality greater than his own? What if it is true but those who haven’t experienced it violently reject it? From Plato’s cave

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

You could just as easily be a person who has had an experience of higher mind or one lacking experience and mocking him to death. You have given no evidence.

A person who has had an experienced is capable of deductive reason while one without experience is limited to inductive reason.

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

Secularism being only concerned with reactive life in the world is unconcerned with the conscious potential for our inner life which is an attribute of objective human meaning and purpose. It becomes hostile to deductive reason since it blocks itself from it. I thank the powers that be that impartial conscious contemplation and its tool of deductive reason, though outside of the mainstream, is still alive in the world

So in reality only the person who has had a direct experience can know. Of course it is true that the experience can devolve into eikasia or sheer conjecture but this doesn’t deny the experience

What is most practical is, we have the faculty of critical thinking which is better used to explore whatever reality-there-is on the basis of the empirical and the philosophical to optimize the individual's well being and therefrom contribute to the well being of humanity.
This is not a theory, but a practice carried by Buddhism and other spirituality since >2500 years ago.

But Again you ignore the limitations of critical thinking. When built on a foundation of prejudice, it loses its value. The dialectic can lead us to contradictions which if viewed impartially can open us to the truth beyond opinions which can be remembered by intuition.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

A method of knowing as contradictive requires a method of knowing beyond it which is not contradictive. A dualism between the correct method of knowing and a false method of knowing thus derives itself in a contradiction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In a way 'man is the singular source' but that cannot be taken absolutely.

You got it wrong by reducing the whole issue to interpretation by man, presumably you implied existence of reality is an interpretation by man. Nope!

What is reality is an emergent that cannot be independent of man, thus man is part and parcel of that reality. This is the point of Protagoras, i.e. man is part and parcel reality as it is.

Since man is self-aware and has an intellect, man can thereafter interpret reality but such interpretation is not the-reality-as-it-is.

What is reality-as-it-is is just 'is' which cannot be spoken.
Because whatever is spoken is qualified as such cannot be reality-as-it-is.
Thus as Wittgenstein asserted,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Thus as far as what-really-is, one must 'shut up'.

If one must speak of reality-as-it-is, then it must be qualified as 'man is the measured of all things'.

The interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur.

Interpretations by man are emergent with man, not with reality.
Man realizes reality via basic consciousness and interpret such reality with his senses, intellect and whatever that is necessary to interpret an emergent realized-reality.

Reality is an emergent-with-man [btw 'not from'] and whatever-there-is.

There are absolutes [relatively] in reality, but not the absolutely-absolute, i.e. the totally unconditional reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

V A

It is because of the unresolved cognitive dissonance that drive [compel] one to speculate on some kind of "greater reality" which will comfort and soothe one's disturbed mind.

You can feel that yourself where you feel comfort with your existing views and discomfort and unease on anything otherwise? Agree?
So why you are sticking to your view is not because it is rational and objective, but rather because it is psychologically more comforting and you have no means to seek alternatives to deal with the very pressing uncompromising cognitive dissonance.

What you speculated, i.e. "a rational conscious purpose for life created by a conscious source" if you reflect deeply is merely pseudo-rational.

But what proof do you have that cognitive dissonance causes a person to contemplate a reality greater than his own? What if it is true but those who haven’t experienced it violently reject it? From Plato’s cave

Theism is a glaring evidence that the existential cognitive dissonance cause a person to contemplate 'a Being no greater can be conceived' so that this greatest Being is able to resolve the cognitive dissonance and relieves immediately all the associated terrible existential pains and sufferings.

It is very common due to a natural 'resistance to change' that some will impulsively [subjectively] reject initially what is novel, new, unfamiliar, they have no experience of, and strange to them.
Btw, you are at present mostly likely rejecting the my views based on a 'resistance to change' and you have dug in the alternative as pressured by the cognitive dissonance.

However there are some who have had the so-called 'experienced of the ONE_ness' but is now rejecting the idea based on critical thinking, rationality and objectivity.
I have personally been a theist for a long time whence I believed God and the oneness that you are now proposing.

However upon critical thinking, I am very convinced rationally and objectively what you are believing, i.e. the ONE, is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

As I had claimed your state of believing in the ONE [as in Plato's cave] is based on subliminal psychology driven by the cognitive dissonance arising from an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

You could just as easily be a person who has had an experience of higher mind or one lacking experience and mocking him to death. You have given no evidence.

A person who has had an experienced is capable of deductive reason while one without experience is limited to inductive reason.

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

Secularism being only concerned with reactive life in the world is unconcerned with the conscious potential for our inner life which is an attribute of objective human meaning and purpose. It becomes hostile to deductive reason since it blocks itself from it. I thank the powers that be that impartial conscious contemplation and its tool of deductive reason, though outside of the mainstream, is still alive in the world

So in reality only the person who has had a direct experience can know. Of course it is true that the experience can devolve into eikasia or sheer conjecture but this doesn’t deny the experience

As mentioned in the past I was theist and then 'thought' I have had experiences of the higher mind, cosmic consciousness or greatest intelligence. But relying on critical thinking, I have realized the truth, i.e. there is no such 'higher mind'.

Btw, deductive reasoning is just a method of logic and is independent from experience.
What is critical for any conclusion to be realistic, all the premises within deductive and inductive reasoning must be based on experience and philosophical reasoning.

You relied on deductive reasoning and you think your premise 1 or 2 is based on direct experience of the greater mind or the ONE, but the point is your direct experience which is subjective is not verified and justified to be real. Try putting your deductive reasoning on paper and if you scrutinize your premises, they are not verified and justified to be real.

It is the same with the schizo or the mentally ill who claimed he experienced God, the ONE and the ALL of reality and insists what he experienced is the most real.
Note this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg where the guy claimed he experienced GOD and Jesus but it turned out he suffered from temporal epilepsy and was subsequently cured medically. V R Ramanchandran explained the basis of false claim from the neuroscientific perspective.

You have overlooked what I referenced from Kant.
Suggest you read them again.
Kant stated the desperate would use deductive reasoning [syllogism] to reify - based on pseudo-rationality - what is illusory into objective reality, i.e. as real.

What is most practical is, we have the faculty of critical thinking which is better used to explore whatever reality-there-is on the basis of the empirical and the philosophical to optimize the individual's well being and therefrom contribute to the well being of humanity.
This is not a theory, but a practice carried by Buddhism and other spirituality since >2500 years ago.

But Again you ignore the limitations of critical thinking. When built on a foundation of prejudice, it loses its value. The dialectic can lead us to contradictions which if viewed impartially can open us to the truth beyond opinions which can be remembered by intuition.

The essential of critical thinking has an open valve to ensure no prejudice, dogmatism and bigotry, i.e. self-corrective.

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.[2] It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism[3][4] and sociocentrism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Einstein believed in a universal God [like Spinoza] and was thus entrapped subliminally by the existential cognitive dissonance as highlighted by Kant;

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR A339 B397

That was why Einstein could not [he resisted] contribute to the discovery of the theories of Quantum Mechanics [no ONENESS] which weird behaviors has been proven and currently generate extensive utilities for Information Technologies, AI and elsewhere.

[Nick_A]

V A

However there are some who have had the so-called 'experienced of the ONE_ness' but is now rejecting the idea based on critical thinking, rationality and objectivity.
I have personally been a theist for a long time whence I believed God and the oneness that you are now proposing.

However upon critical thinking, I am very convinced rationally and objectively what you are believing, i.e. the ONE, is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

As I had claimed your state of believing in the ONE [as in Plato's cave] is based on subliminal psychology driven by the cognitive dissonance arising from an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

I can see that you do not understand my beliefs. This is OK. I don’t believe in a personal God but rather have experienced the inner conscious direction leading to evolution and the potential conscious evolution in the direction of our source.

Where critical thinking is based on intelligent duality, my experience has shown me that actually we live in a triune universe and are normally “third force blind.” Our normal lives are based on the forces we experience as affirmation and denial, yes and no, yin and yang. Then during a down time of my life I was fortunate to learn of the vertical third force of reconciliation.

Normally the third force is just experienced as what leads to our decisions. Yes and no are reconciled to create a phenomena. When experienced consciously, a person can resolve contradictions not by a lie but through a higher conscious perspective.

Imagine a triangle. Allow the left end of the horizontal line to represent yes while the left end represents no. Our lives are lived within this duality of yes and no.

The triangle is created by allowing the ends described as yes and no to vertically rise and come together at the point representing the third force forming the triangle and reconciling the eternal conflict between yes and no uniting the three forces as one.

This has been always known in the essence of religion and now beginning to be know in science as the Law of the INCLUDED middle as separate from the normal law of the EXCLUDED middle or non- contradiction.

Doctor Basarab Nicolescu the prominent particle physicist Explains:

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/b ... difference.

2. The logic of the included middle

Knowledge of the coexistence of the quantum world and the macrophysical world and the development of quantum physics has led, on the level of theory and scientific experiment, to the upheaval of what were formerly considered to be pairs of mutually exclusive contradictories (A and non-A): wave and corpuscle, continuity and discontinuity, separability and nonseparability, local causality and global causality, symmetry and breaking of symmetry, reversibility and irreversibility of time, etc.
For example, equations of quantum physics are submitted to a group of symmetries, but their solutions break these symmetries. Similarly, a group of symmetry is supposed to describe the unification of all known physical interactions but the symmetry must be broken in order to describe the difference between strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.
The intellectual scandal provoked by quantum mechanics consists in the fact that the pairs of contradictories that it generates are actually mutually contradictory when they are analyzed through the interpretative filter of classical logic. This logic is founded on three axioms:
1. The axiom of identity : A is A.
2. The axiom of non-contradiction : A is not non-A.
3. The axiom of the excluded middle : There exists no third term T which is at the same time A and non-A.
According to the hypothesis of the existence of a single level of Reality, the second and third axioms are obviously equivalent. The dogma of a single level of Reality, arbitrary like all dogma, is so embedded in our consciousness that even professional logicians forget to say that these two axioms are in fact distinct and independent from each other.
If one nevertheless accepts this logic which, after all, has ruled for two millennia and continues to dominate thought today (particularly in the political, social, and economic spheres) one immediately arrives at the conclusion that the pairs of contradictories advanced by quantum physics are mutually exclusive, because one cannot affirm the validity of a thing and its opposite at the same time: A and non-A.
Since the definitive formulation of quantum mechanics around 1930 the founders of the new science have been acutely aware of the problem of formulating a new "quantum logic." Subsequent to the work of Birkhoff and van Neumann a veritable flourishing of quantum logics was not long in coming [4]. The aim of these new logics was to resolve the paradoxes which quantum mechanics had created and to attempt, to the extent possible, to arrive at a predictive power stronger than that afforded by classical logic.
Most quantum logics have modified the second axiom of classical logic -- the axiom of non-contradiction -- by introducing non-contradiction with several truth values in place of the binary pair (A, non-A). These multivalent logics, whose status with respect to their predictive power remains controversial, have not taken into account one other possibility: the modification of the third axiom -- the axiom of the excluded middle.
History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values: A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [5]. Stéphane Lupasco, like Edmund Husserl, belongs to the race of pioneers. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance. Many persons believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction -- whence the rather unfortunate name "logic of contradiction" -- and that it entailed the risk of endless semantic glosses. Still more, the visceral fear of introducing the idea of the included middle , with its magical resonances, only helped to increase the distrust of such a logic.
Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle -- there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A -- is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.
In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic -- A, non-A, and T -- and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example: wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.
It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T', which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can accomplish their reconciliation.
The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time . In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time . On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather contradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms.
One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction [6]. The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic: its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.
One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions and passages into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is perhaps the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.
The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle: it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases.

I don’t pretend to believe in a personal god or theism. I am saying that until I discovered and consciously experienced the vertical third force the world didn’t make sense. Once I did, life in the world made perfect sense as a machine lawfully responding to cosmic and universal influences.

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing. Simone Weil

The struggle between yes and no does not include meaning. The third dimension of thought reveals objective meaning. I believe in the existence of the vertical third force leading to our ineffable source since I consciously experienced it

[Veritas Aequitas]

V A

However there are some who have had the so-called 'experienced of the ONE_ness' but is now rejecting the idea based on critical thinking, rationality and objectivity.
I have personally been a theist for a long time whence I believed God and the oneness that you are now proposing.

However upon critical thinking, I am very convinced rationally and objectively what you are believing, i.e. the ONE, is an impossibility to be real empirically and philosophically.

As I had claimed your state of believing in the ONE [as in Plato's cave] is based on subliminal psychology driven by the cognitive dissonance arising from an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

I can see that you do not understand my beliefs. This is OK. I don’t believe in a personal God but rather have experienced the inner conscious direction leading to evolution and the potential conscious evolution in the direction of our source.

Where critical thinking is based on intelligent duality, my experience has shown me that actually we live in a triune universe and are normally “third force blind.” Our normal lives are based on the forces we experience as affirmation and denial, yes and no, yin and yang. Then during a down time of my life I was fortunate to learn of the vertical third force of reconciliation.

Normally the third force is just experienced as what leads to our decisions. Yes and no are reconciled to create a phenomena. When experienced consciously, a person can resolve contradictions not by a lie but through a higher conscious perspective.

Imagine a triangle. Allow the left end of the horizontal line to represent yes while the left end represents no. Our lives are lived within this duality of yes and no.

The triangle is created by allowing the ends described as yes and no to vertically rise and come together at the point representing the third force forming the triangle and reconciling the eternal conflict between yes and no uniting the three forces as one.

This has been always known in the essence of religion and now beginning to be know in science as the Law of the INCLUDED middle as separate from the normal law of the EXCLUDED middle or non- contradiction.

I did not state you believe in a personal God. I alluded you are inclined toward a universal God like that of Spinoza which Einstein also believed.

If you do not believe in a universal God, your "third force blind" is similar in the same sense, you and the likes are driven by the inherent cognitive dissonance to cling onto something that is other than reality, i.e. ordinary empirical and philosophical reality.

For those who are not into theism, they will resort to something non-theistic like Sophenhauer's "Will," a third-party-intelligence, ultimate BEING, and the likes which ultimately is something no one can prove realistically.

The World as Will
It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe.

For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself, as they flow through everything else.

For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

I did very extensive research into Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Vols. I and II, translated by E. F. J. Payne, long ago. I believe Schopenhauer presented the best argument re that 'third force' which I once agree with but not any more. I recommend you read Schopenhauer to reinforce your belief on that 'third force' within your own being and that of the universe.

For the very ignorant who are not into any of the above, they have to resort to drugs, pain-killers and other means to deal with the cognitive dissonance that generate terrible subconscious pains and sufferings.

Doctor Basarab Nicolescu the prominent particle physicist Explains:

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/b ... difference.

2. The logic of the included middle
....
....

I believe the above is a misrepresentation of the "excluded middle" and the "included middle".
The "excluded middle" [not realistic] is merely something to facilitate the working of classical logic based on dualism.
In reality the "included middle" is whatever that is real and in between the extreme ends of a continuum.
In classical logic there is only 100% black and 100% white which do not take into account the excluded middle, i.e. the 99% black to 1% black and similarly 1% white to 99% white.

The concept of a continuum is based on unity rather than dualism of either black or white.
Thus there is the concept of continuum, the concept of system, the concept of wholeness, and concept of unity to reconcile the dichotomy of dualism.
There is no need for a "third force" which is driven by the inherent existential cognitive dissonance to close the gap [psychological] to consonance.

I don’t pretend to believe in a personal god or theism. I am saying that until I discovered and consciously experienced the vertical third force the world didn’t make sense. Once I did, life in the world made perfect sense as a machine lawfully responding to cosmic and universal influences.

The 'perfect sense' is just that you feel very soothing or is soothed to take the stance there is a vertical third force apart from ordinary objective reality. It is very psychological but not rational and objective.

The struggle between yes and no does not include meaning. The third dimension of thought reveals objective meaning. I believe in the existence of the vertical third force leading to our ineffable source since I consciously experienced it

Simone Weil and the likes are entrapped by the subliminal forces of the cognitive dissonance in driven to infer [subconsciously] a third force that soothed the inherent cognitive dissonance.
There is no rational nor objective basis to that "third force" other than the psychological factors that compel one to the thought of a "third force" or its similar expression.

[Nick_A]

VA

I did very extensive research into Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Vols. I and II, translated by E. F. J. Payne, long ago. I believe Schopenhauer presented the best argument re that 'third force' which I once agree with but not any more. I recommend you read Schopenhauer to reinforce your belief on that 'third force' within your own being and that of the universe.

A good explanation of animal consciousness and how it reacts to the lawful machine we call universe.

I believe the above is a misrepresentation of the "excluded middle" and the "included middle".
The "excluded middle" [not realistic] is merely something to facilitate the working of classical logic based on dualism.
In reality the "included middle" is whatever that is real and in between the extreme ends of a continuum.
In classical logic there is only 100% black and 100% white which do not take into account the excluded middle, i.e. the 99% black to 1% black and similarly 1% white to 99% white.

The concept of a continuum is based on unity rather than dualism of either black or white.
Thus there is the concept of continuum, the concept of system, the concept of wholeness, and concept of unity to reconcile the dichotomy of dualism.
There is no need for a "third force" which is driven by the inherent existential cognitive dissonance to close the gap [psychological] to consonance.

Would you agree that A and not A cannot exist together? This is the law of the excluded middle. The law of the Included middle asserts that A and not A can exist together within a higher level of reality.

Animal consciousness is limited to duality in which the third force is within the lawful continuum. The third force is hidden from animal consciousness so doesn’t appear to be necessary.

Awareness of third force is only possible either for conscious beings or those who have had the temporary vertical experience of consciousness

The question and seeking of meaning is driven by that cognitive dissonance arising from

• 1. the inevitable and unavoidable mortality and

2. the inescapable terrible pain and sufferings because man is endowed with an unavoidable self-awareness
, thus aware of 1.

These two unavoidabilities [cognitive dissonance] drive man to seek meaning to reconcile the logically "irreconcilable" 1 and 2.

The understand of "meaning" would then be a consolation to the cognitive dissonance.

This is true for animal consciousness. The two unavoidabilities can only be reconciled by imagination producing consolation

The law of the included middle asserts that these two unavoidabilities can be reconciled from a higher conscious level of reality made possible by the included middle.

Animal consciousness is restricted to one level of reality while human consciousness can vertically connect several levels of reality by the included middle.

Why is Man restricted to animal consciousness and fights so hard against opening to human consciousness? It is because most of Man on earth is animal. Human consciousness must be allowed to grow; to be allowed to experience these two unvoildibilities as one from a higher perspective. Third force doesn’t deny duality but rather gives it meaning. How can I experience my struggle for life in the context of my eventual death without sinking into imagination and consolation? It is possible by becoming more conscious, more human, and less of a creature of blind reaction responding to the lawful dualistic influences of yin and yang.

You’ve suggested that critical thinking has helped you to reconcile these two unvoidibilites you’ve mentioned. How has it helped you to accept the apparently meaningless situation of your struggle for life and your inevitable death without sinking into imagination or nihilism?

[Eodnhoj7]

In a way 'man is the singular source' but that cannot be taken absolutely.

You got it wrong by reducing the whole issue to interpretation by man, presumably you implied existence of reality is an interpretation by man. Nope!

What is reality is an emergent that cannot be independent of man, thus man is part and parcel of that reality. This is the point of Protagoras, i.e. man is part and parcel reality as it is.

Since man is self-aware and has an intellect, man can thereafter interpret reality but such interpretation is not the-reality-as-it-is.

What is reality-as-it-is is just 'is' which cannot be spoken.
Because whatever is spoken is qualified as such cannot be reality-as-it-is.
Thus as Wittgenstein asserted,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Thus as far as what-really-is, one must 'shut up'.

If one must speak of reality-as-it-is, then it must be qualified as 'man is the measured of all things'.

The interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur.

Interpretations by man are emergent with man, not with reality.
Man realizes reality via basic consciousness and interpret such reality with his senses, intellect and whatever that is necessary to interpret an emergent realized-reality.

Reality is an emergent-with-man [btw 'not from'] and whatever-there-is.

There are absolutes [relatively] in reality, but not the absolutely-absolute, i.e. the totally unconditional reality.

1. Man emerges from reality thus is real. Interpretations emerge from man thus reality. Reality emerges from man.

2. A totally absolute unconditional reality is the point. All phenomenon appear as points from a distance and up close are composed of points. The point divides/multiplies to further points and contracts back to a single point. The point is absolute,

[Veritas Aequitas]

The interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur.

Interpretations by man are emergent with man, not with reality.
Man realizes reality via basic consciousness and interpret such reality with his senses, intellect and whatever that is necessary to interpret an emergent realized-reality.

Reality is an emergent-with-man [btw 'not from'] and whatever-there-is.

There are absolutes [relatively] in reality, but not the absolutely-absolute, i.e. the totally unconditional reality.

1. Man emerges from reality thus is real. Interpretations emerge from man thus reality. Reality emerges from man.

Note I stated, man emerges [spontaneously] with reality, not 'from'.
The term 'from' implied there is something pre-existing that man emerged from. No this is not the case.

2. A totally absolute unconditional reality is the point. All phenomenon appear as points from a distance and up close are composed of points. The point divides/multiplies to further points and contracts back to a single point. The point is absolute,

"A totally absolute unconditional reality" is an impossibility to be real.
Prove "A totally absolute unconditional reality" exists absolutely by itself and in-itself.
There is no way you can prove that.
If so, show me the proof, verification and justification that "A totally absolute unconditional reality" is really real.

[Eodnhoj7]

Interpretations by man are emergent with man, not with reality.
Man realizes reality via basic consciousness and interpret such reality with his senses, intellect and whatever that is necessary to interpret an emergent realized-reality.

Reality is an emergent-with-man [btw 'not from'] and whatever-there-is.

There are absolutes [relatively] in reality, but not the absolutely-absolute, i.e. the totally unconditional reality.

1. Man emerges from reality thus is real. Interpretations emerge from man thus reality. Reality emerges from man.

Note I stated, man emerges [spontaneously] with reality, not 'from'.
The term 'from' implied there is something pre-existing that man emerged from. No this is not the case.

2. A totally absolute unconditional reality is the point. All phenomenon appear as points from a distance and up close are composed of points. The point divides/multiplies to further points and contracts back to a single point. The point is absolute,

"A totally absolute unconditional reality" is an impossibility to be real.
Prove "A totally absolute unconditional reality" exists absolutely by itself and in-itself.
There is no way you can prove that.
If so, show me the proof, verification and justification that "A totally absolute unconditional reality" is really real.

Man as intertwined with reality both emerges from, through and with reality. As such man is an intermediary from which emergences arise.

The proof of a totally absolute unconditional reality is then simple point or dot.

[Nick_A]

Note I stated, man emerges [spontaneously] with reality, not 'from'.
The term 'from' implied there is something pre-existing that man emerged from. No this is not the case.

2. A totally absolute unconditional reality is the point. All phenomenon appear as points from a distance and up close are composed of points. The point divides/multiplies to further points and contracts back to a single point. The point is absolute,
"A totally absolute unconditional reality" is an impossibility to be real.
Prove "A totally absolute unconditional reality" exists absolutely by itself and in-itself.
There is no way you can prove that.
If so, show me the proof, verification and justification that "A totally absolute unconditional reality" is really real.

Two important philosophical questions:

Does Man emerge from the source or does man emerge from within the source?

Is there a difference between a point and infinitity?

Tellingly, her a-theological demarche toward the redemptive universality of kenosis could be paralleled at most with Franz Kafka's strategy of overcoming power by taking refuge in what he called "das Kleine" [the small].[69] In a brief passage that Elias Canetti[70] considers akin to a Taoist text, Franz Kafka explains what "small" meant to him:

"Zwei Möglichkeiten: sich unendlich klein machen oder es sein. Das zweite ist Vollendung, also Untätigkeit, das erste Beginn, also Tat." [71]

[Two possibilities: to make oneself infinitely small or to be (such). The second one is perfection, therefore non-activity; the first (is) beginning, therefore action.]
For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout." [72]
[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]


How can the infinitely small be more than all?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Man emerges from reality thus is real. Interpretations emerge from man thus reality. Reality emerges from man.

Note I stated, man emerges [spontaneously] with reality, not 'from'.
The term 'from' implied there is something pre-existing that man emerged from. No this is not the case.

2. A totally absolute unconditional reality is the point. All phenomenon appear as points from a distance and up close are composed of points. The point divides/multiplies to further points and contracts back to a single point. The point is absolute,

"A totally absolute unconditional reality" is an impossibility to be real.
Prove "A totally absolute unconditional reality" exists absolutely by itself and in-itself.
There is no way you can prove that.
If so, show me the proof, verification and justification that "A totally absolute unconditional reality" is really real.

Man as intertwined with reality both emerges from, through and with reality. As such man is an intermediary from which emergences arise.

The proof of a totally absolute unconditional reality is then simple point or dot.

You are trying to be rhetorical here.

I stated we must exclude the term 'from' and preferably 'with'.
When you use such terms, logically you will be lead to think of source or an intermediary.

Note I mentioned the Two-Truths-Theory of Buddhism in the other post,

• The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (a Sanskrit and Pali word meaning truth or reality) in the teaching of the Buddha:
  • 1. the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and
    2. the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Yes, re the conventional perspective, there is the 'from' 'with' and all other relative terms.

In the ultimate perspective, there is 'nothing' except for whatever is in the 'now' without reference to the past or anything [intermediary].

Why you are entrapped with the conventional view is due to psychology and that is the basis of potential sufferings and evilness.
Whilst one is entrapped in the conventional view, one is bound to suffer psychologically. Are you sure you are free of sufferings [conscious and unconscious].