Philosophy Now Forum

Hello to the members of this community of minds. I know what absolute Truth is and for philosophy’s sake it is necessary to inform you of this fact.

Our future depends upon knowledge of absolute Truths and absolute philosophy is the only category of philosophy that serves philosophy’s raison d’etre. If anyone wants to dispute this and praise relativistic philosophy, here is your chance to acclaim partial truths, approve ethical fictions and offer praise for conventional philosophy.

My metaphysic, “Absolute Truth”, is available in ebook form here:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015

For a hardcopy [POD]
https://www.createspace.com/6598243

Absolute Truth is predicated on metaphysical logic. Received logic, i.e. dialectic, is too anaemic to proffer incontrovertible causes. Real logic will be presented in the accompanying essay.

I will be posting a series of essays that include:
The logic of Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity and the logic of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reasoning – these two intellectual landmarks share the same deep, metaphysical logic.
Overviews of ontology and teleology.
The methodology of non-duality, definitions of Idealism, the void and proof, and religion and Truth.
Along the way we will go beyond good and evil with explicit examples.

20% of my ebook is free to download. The free download includes key political Truths which provide the best examples of absolute Truths. I will not do political philosophy in my essays because their commentary is too extensive, but I will answer political questions.

My metaphysic is based on the systematising of existential dichotomies. All Truths are dichotomies. Reality is the product of a dichotomous monism, i.e. yin—yang. Dichotomies are syntheses, hence they do not have antitheses. The absence of antitheses makes absolutes unassailable.

I agree with G. W. F. Hegel and count myself an absolute Idealist. I know what he wanted to achieve in ontology, the logic he sought and how dialectical movement reveals determinism.

Ascription of logic to metaphysics is achieved by Idealism defining ontology with logos-consistent logic. Via a series of syntheses, individuality, political order and the creative cause are linked by logic. Thereby ontology becomes the most inclusive and important topic.

Objective truth and absolute Truth have nothing in common, which brings me back to the Absolute being the only business to warrant philosophical attention. Objective truths lead to nothing profound; they do not organise / aggregate; they do not collate into a ‘whole’ and offer insight. The inadequacies of objective truth gave raise to ethics. Ethics has no basis; goodness does not exist. Logic destroys ethics and values.

The reader’s basic concern is, “Is this metaphysic for real?” The logic of the Special Theory of Relativity follows to address your concern. In it I will present Idealism’s logic and apply it to the Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein’s Theories of Relativity are absolute Truths. The Special Theory involves three objective truths [slow clocks, shortened measures, increasing mass]. These three truths do not reveal the Absolute, and they appear unconnected – one truth does not suppose the others. Logic unifies the truths and makes the Special Theory of Relativity sensible by making sense of the distortions that happen at great speeds.


The Logic of the Special Theory of Relativity

Implicit to a theory of relativity is an absolute perspective. Albert Einstein provided two empirical theories of relativity, neither of which revealed the Absolute. This essay identifies what is absolute in the Special Theory of Relativity. The Absolute is not a ‘stand-alone’ entity [like God] as dualistic reasoning would seek to detect. The Absolute in the Special Theory is the [metaphysical] logic of the Theory. It is found by subjecting the empirical truths to further analysis, hence the Absolute resides in abstractions beyond empirical observation. Abstracting beyond empiricism takes reasoning into immanence, a realm of pure reasoning. The limitations of truth and proof mean this is not empirical proof for metaphysics. It is an empirical endorsement.

The best example of a single absolute Truth is Figure 1.1. The logic of political economy. It is available in the free download mentioned in the Introduction to this Topic. It reveals how Truth is removed from values. However, the transcendence of values does not demonstrate how Truth / Idealism is a perspective removed from objective truth / empiricism. The best demonstration of Truth’s remove from appearances is the following transcendence of scientific truths.

Since David Hume [1711 – 1776] a scientific endorsement for metaphysics has been requested and that expectation is now accommodated. The following scientific substantiation for logic demonstrates how Truth is deeper than the empirical level of comprehension. Logic comes after the empirical conclusions and makes sense of the empirical conclusions of Special Relativity that defy objective comprehension.

In a tailpiece the difference between materialism and Idealism is delineated.

Here is the definition of logic: subjective events countervail objective event between existential reciprocals.

The following is lifted from my book, Absolute Truth. Please note how brief and incisive the logical explanation is relative to the following discussion that deals with received ideas.

In brief, the Special Theory of Relativity states:
1. A moving object measures shorter in its direction of motion as its velocity increases.
2. The mass of a moving object measures more as its velocity increases.
3. A moving clock runs more slowly as its velocity increases.

The logic of the Special Theory is that objective increases are accompanied by countervailing subjective decreases. Facts [1] and [3] above apply to measuring rods [distance] and clocks [time]. Distance and time are subjective quantities. It is logical that these subjective quantities should decrease while mass [objective quantity] increases with velocity.

And that is the logic of Special Relativity. Perhaps with some clarification as to what constitutes a subjective quantity the above analysis will become clearer. Objective quantities can be put in the hand, touched or objectively verified. Subjective quantities are intangibles that the mind contributes. The figure “zero” is a subjective quantity. It is not commonly known that time and distance are subjective quantities. Time is an interval. An interval cannot be taken hold of. A watch can rest in the hand, but a watch is not an interval. It is metal, glass or plastic. Twenty-four hours in a day, sixty minutes in an hour are universal conventions. With regards to distance, a short stick and a long stick are both wood so far as their objective properties are concerned. The units that describe the difference between long and short are subjective universal conventions.

The strange things that happen under the unique conditions of the Special Theory are less strange when it is appreciated that subjectivity and objectivity interplay at an abstract level beyond science. As for the pertinent reciprocals, they are the observer and the observed. Always there are objective stimuli and subjective a priori in an interaction between an observer and the observed. The Special Theory of Relativity makes the interaction more fascinating. The resolution of political economy has the same logic as the Special Theory of Relativity. These two examples of logic illustrate the degree of abstraction that pertains to immanence, its subtlety, scale and remove from empiricism.

The Relativity of Relativity
From the above Idealism takes scientific endorsement for logic, but for empiricism logic is not objective and the accord is a coincidence. Empiricists demanded “scientific” proof for metaphysics and the above demonstrates Idealism is not evasive, however ‘scientific endorsement’ is not ‘objective proof’ for the pedantic.

Idealism can make the Special Theory intelligible and it can declare the Special Theory an absolute Truth, but strictly science is not satisfied. Science seeks objective truth and it does not see an objective truth. For science it is ‘eccentric’ of Idealism to address the Special Theory with its prescription for universal order. Science cannot verify immanence, so logic’s interpretation of the Special Theory cannot be accepted. Science avoids committing to whether the Special Theory was made intelligible. Thus science cannot get to the root of relativity, cannot conceive of ideas greater than truth and proof and cannot inquire into creation – science cannot recognise the existential. The logic of Special Relativity is a further analysis of the data and it explains a deeper cause, but science has its rules of valid inference. There is comeuppance here. Scientists like to ask hard questions of the religious. Now it is getting some of its own medicine. By staying true to its precepts science is evasive.

This is an auspicious moment. Science is supposed to accept the simplest and most precise explanation for a phenomenon and empiricism has disallowed a clarification on the basis of its limitations [with subjectivity]. The root of the problem is duality’s inadequacy with synthetic a priori. Logic explains Special Relativity with a synthetic a priori.

[Here ends the lift-out.]

The sub-title “The Relativity of Relativity” alludes to the three truths of Special Relativity being relative to Truth / logic.

Pure Reasoning
Logic is perceived by Pure Reasoning. Pure Reasoning is a topic of conjecture for academics because so-called logic / received logic / dialectic is assumed to be the only mode of reasoning. Dialectic is synonymous with argumentation and appropriately in Wikipedia, an inquiry into “Pure Reasoning” redirects to “Argument”. In Wikipedia there is a study of various kinds of argumentation in terms of valid, objective truth. There is nothing ‘pure’ about the study of truth, because the study is endless and truth is partial.

For Idealism, logic is about absolute causation antecedent to appearances and argumentation.

The Special Theory of Relativity is an absolute perspective. The Absolute resides in Ideas that involve objective and subjective behaviour. By explaining the connection between objectivity and subjectivity, logic brings cogency to the Theory.

Perspicacity by insight deserves the appellation: Pure Reasoning.

Epistemology
I cannot prove the logic of the Special Theory – no-body can – because Truth is bigger than proof. Epistemology imagines it can be independent of what it studies. Nothing can be independent of the Absolute, and that is the simplest reason for refuting proof for Truth. With the above scientific endorsement, I can go beyond the limitations of proof to destroy a false doctrine: Marx’s dialectical materialism, that epistemology cannot debunk.

Debunking Marx
Karl Marx converted Hegel’s dialectical movement into dialectical materialism to contrive a truth about the inevitability of communist succession. Marx claimed his materialist interpretation of Hegel’s idea of social change was scientific. No proof exists, but it gave communists confidence and in communist countries it was built up to socialist Truth proportions. Marx’s conversion of Hegel’s ideas committed three errors: it corrupted the Idealist synthesis, it supposes Idealism to be diametric to materialism and it infers materialism is scientific. The second assumption deserves attention.

The logic of the Special Theory is more abstract that empiricism. Idealism’s explanation is deeper than empiricism’s because it begins where empiricism ends and includes subjectivity. Idealism is therefore not equable to scientific truth – it is more profound.

Discontinuity between Idealism and empiricism exposes the pretension that is dialectical materialism. The logic of the Special Theory distinguishes truth from Truth and Idealism is not the antithesis of Marxian materialism.

Marx’s conversion of Hegel’s idea is neither fish nor fowl. He did not understand Idealism is not the diametric opposite of materialism. He had no respect for truth. He cobbled ideas to fit his conviction. Logic disproves Marx’s fabrication – a fabrication that epistemology cannot refute.

By proving Idealism is not the antithesis of materialism, I have dismissed critics of Idealism such as Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper who conflated Hegel with Marx and others like G. E. Moore and B. A. W. Russell who thought empiricism was philosophy’s gold standard. It is Idealism’s duty to establish its bona fides, and it is regrettable that Marx took what was distinctive in Hegel’s speculative Idealism to concoct shonky determinism and a claim to scientific validity.

The reader may now understand the peculiarities of the Special Theory, appreciate the transcendence of truth, appreciate how Marx was a perfidious contriver and realise that logic is removed from objectivity and appearances. My next essay will present the logic of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason – same logic, different eminent theory. Who could guess that the landmark theories of Einstein and Kant are joined by a common logic?

This is the second substantiation for metaphysical logic. Part of the entitlement to change the definition of logic involves Einstein’s landmark science, Kant’s landmark Idealism and definitive Idealism being made collinear.

The logic of Kant’s Critique

This essay is a companion-piece to the essay on the logic of Special Relativity. It reveals the logic that underlies I. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The landmark work of Einstein and Kant share the same logic.

The definition of logic: subjective events countervail objective events between existential reciprocals.

Again the logic is brief, the commentary is long, it is beyond proof, but it makes sense.

The following is lifted from Chapter Three of my book: Absolute Truth.

I must explain how Kant came to his denial of metaphysics. David Hume [1711 – 76] had painted philosophy into a corner with an empirical search for what knowledge is, based on observable causes such as a hammer hitting a nail. He concluded that there was no basis for certainty of knowledge for observed events; knowledge is acquired through experience and supposition. Between say fire and heat, no causal link exists independent of our imagination; we know fire causes heat, but what is the link and is it constant? Hume reasoned philosophy is incapable of discovering the truth about any matter. Knowledge should be left to scientists to collect; there is nothing that a philosopher is better equipped to discover. This conclusion worried Hume, but there it was. To rescue philosophy from Hume's radical scepticism, Kant produced an explanation for the cognitive process that added subjective faculties to what experience provided, meaning knowledge gathering relies upon a priori concepts supplied by the faculties. In other words, cognition depends upon subjective a priori recognising objective stimuli. The premise of Kant's Critique can be précised in a sentence: knowledge results from stimuli being acknowledged with a priori concepts supplied by the mind. Add the fact that there is an observer and the observed and Kant had answered Hume with a dichotomous explanation that included ‘subjectivity + objectivity’. The unchanging context for cognition lay in the dichotomous relationship. Kant’s reply to Hume was entirely metaphysical.

Kant's Critique resolved the impasse presented by Hume's radical scepticism. Kant then investigated a priori concepts to see if they could give rise to metaphysical ideas. All the a priori concepts Kant could conceive of gave no hint of immanence. Kant therefore believed we possess no concepts with which to reason beyond experience, however … his study of categories of knowledge suggested metaphysics was possible if synthetic a priori existed. Kant wanted to believe metaphysics was possible but he could not see beyond its theoretical possibility. With dualistic reasoning limited to appearances, Kant joined Hume in concluding that a realm of absolute forms / Ideas was without foundation. It seemed that metaphysics had been denied both appearances and the psyche, thereby making its ability to contribute to philosophy and reason in general, suspect.

The Logic of the Critique

The two-dimensional dichotomy pertaining to the Critique is the observer and the observed. From the observed, the observer receives stimuli. This is the objective event. The observer projects a priori concepts at the observed. This is the subjective event. Via this objective and subjective exchange, we acquire knowledge.

Knowledge results from stimuli we receive and the concepts supplied by the mind. It means objectivity in, subjectivity out, between observer and observed: the logic of the Critique. Kant had no reason to look deeper into this relationship – he had nothing to relate it to – but that is how close he was to answering his own question about the possibility of synthetic a priori.

“Objectivity in, subjectivity out, between observer and observed” is a stark expression of logical interaction. The Truth of Cognition was too brief for its elements to be abstracted and related to other phenomena and there was no similar phenomenon for Kant to compare his answer with. There is logical constancy in the way knowledge is gathered but there is no certainty about the knowledge gathered. Certainty was covered in the discussion on scepticism in Chapter One.

Because Kant’s reply to Hume left metaphysical questions unanswered, it was interpreted as anti-metaphysical and classified as rationalism. Academic rationalism is some half-way house between metaphysics and empiricism where pure reason can perform non-metaphysical feats. The difference between rationalism and metaphysics is the difference between deduction and synthesis; objective subtraction and subjective addition, respectively. A rationalist conclusion is objectively subtracted from a premise. In metaphysical reasoning the conclusion involves reciprocals plus subjective input. Kant added a priori concepts to objective stimuli – he did not objectively prove there are such mental concepts – and he performed a synthesis. Because he was dealing with objective experience and not immanent constructs he had no problem adding analytical a priori concepts to his explanation for cognition as direct causation. In metaphysical reasoning the thinker must contribute something from their imagination. This returns us to the discussion in Chapter One under The Relativity of Relativity where it was acknowledged that an objectivist need not agree that logic incisively explains Special Relativity because logic has a subjective component. However, the objectivist is left living a life of denial since we are all constantly adding a priori concepts to events in our daily lives.

Kant joined the rationalists because of the inability to appreciate how profound his reply was. The Critique is non-dualistic. It does not involve values, so it failed to challenge duality. When subjective and objective interaction is more important than values, consciousness has undergone a revolution. Applying logic to the Critique makes an ally of a famous critic of metaphysics who would have been happy to be counted as a metaphysician. The Critique is recognised as philosophy’s greatest success and since it is consistent with logic, dualistic philosophy is deprived of this landmark achievement in philosophy.

[Here ends the lift out.]

The logic of cognition demonstrates that the Absolute is as intimate as cognition and not God in a distant heaven. Again we see logic is twice removed from phenomena: Kant explained cognition and logic takes that explanation one step further to reveal its absolute nature.

We now have clear evidence that in the deepest reaches of creation subjectivity is every bit as important as objectivity. The other parameter in both examples, i.e. observer and observed, are not a dynamic duo, but they do explain what mystics mean by “You are that”. Logical comprehension of cognition joins the participants.

The next essay will be a short exposition on non-duality.

Previous essays presented Truth and its logic. Those Truths are outliers, distinct from the systematising and recognised after the systematising afforded knowledge of metaphysical reality. Prestigious endorsements are advantageous because core theory; ontology, does not lend itself to piecemeal display. I will now explain non-duality.

Non-duality

Absolute Idealism achieves its raison d’etre by being non-dualistic. Non-dualistic thinking is facilitated with diagrams. An analogy is depictions of electrical circuitry. Prose cannot do the same job as a circuitry diagram and the same is true for Truth.

All Truths synthesise existential reciprocals. Synthesis is the missing function in philosophy and ontology can only be presented via diagrams. The verity of a diagram lies in its underlying logic.

A major difference between duality and non-duality is the absence of subjects in non-duality. There is no focus to the interaction of reciprocals; no focus means no subject. Reciprocals are the reason for the famous void that confounds dualistic / dialectic thinking about mysticism. Dichotomies do not have foci. And yes, Idealism rationalises mysticism.

Here are five reasons why diagrams precede knowledge of ontological Truths;
1. Sentences have subjects and predicates, which makes sentences useless. Once a Truth is presented in diagrammatic form, prose can begin.
2. The amount of information contained in a diagram makes sentences hopeless. Relationships are cardinal and may involve three-dimensions. The connotation of a diagram has to be presented in one, incisive statement. Prose cannot do that.
3. Truths have dimension and sentences are one-dimensional.
4. Sentences are instantly reductive / analytical. What is a subject without a predicate?
5. Idealism is intent upon synthesis – the process diametric to analytical knowledge.

The gulf between mysticism and duality is due to the above irreconcilable differences.

Synthesis, reciprocals, dimension and logic via diagrams is a new way to reason. To understand what I am alluding to, go to
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015

For a hardcopy [POD]
https://www.createspace.com/6598243

I will elaborate on this topic after a few posts. Next time, an overview of ontology.

What do you think I'd do if you came up to me on the street, as a stranger, and started both lecturing to me and trying to sell me on (at least reading) a book that you wrote?

Terrapin. Hang about for at least two more essays.

I can see that you cannot appreciate this topic as a unique event. It is extremely rare to be treated to absolute Idealism. Idealism is supposed to be beyond argumentation. You cannot produce an argument, yet you are coming at me like you are offended. It may reflect your "NYC Man" tag.

While you are clearly out of your depth, try to take the 'vibe'. Be cool. You are not doing yourself any favours by trying to bring Idealism down to a confrontation on the street. Those persons who know metaphysics are waiting to see if I "mess-up". This is a philosophical 'high-wire' act. If I mess-up, it will be fun for young and old. I won't mess-up because mine is a closed system and I know when to stop.

Rod ..are you trying to be amusing?

What you say is pure nonsense and babble!! Many has tried to create the absolute idealism, which utterly failed, religion, communism, capitalism ..etc, etc. does the media bring the absolute truth now? No ofc not.

hi Hex. It is not sufficient to imply I am clowning. It is necessary to substantiate your opinion. You have two posted examples of Truth to work with and a book.

Has it crossed your mind that the failure to find absolute Truth lies with what is commonly thought to be logic?

I need people to step up to my challenge, Hex. You are not on the job.

What is philosophy about?

Yesterday’s interlocutors [always wanted to use that word] Terrapin and Hex obliges me to ask the question: what is philosophy about for punters here at Phil. Now? For me it has always been the search for absolute Truth. Undeniably the art of argumentation is to be included, but philosophy is not about ethics because ethics are baseless, i.e. no such thing as goodness.

I am left thinking that philosophy is arguments for Terrapin and social interaction for Hex.

Philosophy should not be the search for [objective] truth because that is science’s role. Objective truth is relative, true in its own way, but not to be deemed the means of coming to grips with reality. I wish to establish that it is metaphysics’ duty to pronounce upon reality and I have already done that, but have not spelled it out.

My first essay on the logic of the Special Theory of Relativity turned three loose truths into a coherent statement. These truths went from being verities about weird behaviour into components of a lucid statement after being organised by logic. Coherence is most needed in politics and that requires a big statement about political reality.

Epistemology is prominent in modern philosophy because truth is a dodgy entity. Add the fact that epistemology cannot debunk ethics, and epistemology supports my position.

Political philosophy is covered by ontology. The philosophy of history is covered by teleology. The philosophy of religion is a joke. These statements need elaboration, but I am surprised that people fail to recognise absolute Truth as the number one priority in philosophy, by a country mile.

Feel free to make this question correlated to the main Topic.

Ontology

Metaphysics is about what is pre-ordained, in time and being. Alternatively stated, metaphysics studies processes antecedent to appearances. Pre-ordination cannot be seen, so it is futile to try to do metaphysics with dialectic. Metaphysics is mostly ontology, and metaphysics with a logic is portentous.

Ontology is the master topic of philosophy. You will not be patently told this in any text book because Idealism has to first take control. Ontology is about ‘being’ / our existence. It is entirely absolute Truths and it is the only topic capable of eliciting absolute Truth. Ontology involves political Truths, Jungian psychology and mysticism. Its scope is incomparable, yet it is succinct on account of the diagrams used to present it.

Thanks to G. W. F. Hegel, absolute Idealism is a school with a pre-conception about ontology. From a mystical experience, Hegel deduced this maxim: the nation is the objectification of what is True of the individual. I affirm the maxim.

The maxim is the most seminal idea in philosophy.

The Idealist Model of Reality

Ontology is the creative and immanent causes that precede appearances. As an inductive process it is:

Creative cause --> immanence --> appearances

Idealists seek to first know immanence, then the creative cause based on synthesis. The nation and the individual are mutually dependent. Political traits and psychological symbols, i.e. objectivity and subjectivity, are associated to build a schema greater than the sum of the parts.

Jungian psychology plumbs the same depths as the Truths revealed in the first two Posts. It is genuinely, ‘depth psychology’.

Because the nation—individual relationship is absolute, there arise religious connotations, which afford Idealism access to the creative cause; the ability to take religious connotations from ideas about immanence, is due to the schema being “greater than the sum of the parts”.

Clues
The tracing of the above, inductive process begins with the discovery of metaphysical logic. Everything bears the imprint of logic, because logic made it, but it is exceeding hard to find logic in appearances. One of two big clues to logic is male—female. However, this way-out-in-the-open, absolute dichotomy does not connect to another similar dichotomy, to suggest what immanence is.

The second clue is the resolution of political economy. This dualism involving capitalism and socialism must be reinterpreted as a dichotomy. When these ideologies are reconciled, logic is found.


The cover of my book has a motif that expresses three, serial syntheses. Ontology is three syntheses which I will outline.

I. The first synthesis, the bottom synthesis, identifies Truth in appearances. It concerns capitalism—socialism.

The gathering-in of Truth occurs through the transcendence of political ideology. Every ideology rests on some part of the political economic whole. Ideologies combine political economic activity with values. The Truth of political economy is found by eschewing values and recognising actualities.

II. The second synthesis builds immanence. It concerns Individual Mind—National Mind.

Immanence is objective National Mind reciprocating subjective Individual Mind.

National Mind is the conditions for civil society. Individual Mind is basic human nature. The metaphysics of the individual’s affinity with society are drawn from correspondence between archetypes and institutions. The nation / society has been the objectification of human nature from the first polity. The rationalising of this Truth realises the transcendence of politics.

III. The third synthesis is the creative cause. It concerns logos—Absolute Mind.

The creative cause is an interaction between the logos and Absolute Mind. The logos is latent Mind. Absolute Mind is the universe. Thus creation is a dynamic based on the differentiation of the unmanifested—manifested. An analogue of this foremost dichotomy is seed—fruit.

The progressing of Idealism causes the regression of duality. Three aspects of duality are terminated by logic: ethics, monism [God] and religion as faith. Ontology denies the existence of goodness. Monism is replaced with dichotomous monism. Religion as faith is replaced by esoteric religion.

The above outlines how logic is found in appearances and logic oversees the construction of immanence. Not explained is how logic finds the logos to become reconciled with its etymological root. The uniting of logic with logos entitles absolute Idealism to change the definition of logic.

The next instalment will present an overview of absolute Idealism

It is simpler to acquaint ones-self with my Idealism than try to follow an overview because Idealism involves real logic. I may be digging a theoretical hole, but the following is Absolute Idealism by a definitive Idealist, and that is a first. Every dialectical attempt to explain Idealism is hopeless and I will explain why next time.

Absolute Idealism

Absolute Idealism seeks the natural order. To go straight to work, it is found with ontology and teleology. They are reciprocals. This pairing may be perceived as being—time, i.e. existence includes history. Ontology—teleology encapsulates Idealism’s biggest idea: culture. Absolute Idealism is non-hierarchical, so political aspects of culture do not elevate government.

G. W. F Hegel [1770 – 1831] laid the [speculative] foundations of absolute Idealism. He unsuccessfully sought a metaphysical logic for ontology and his teleology asserted dialectical movement. Dialectical movement is the distinctive idea of this school. R. L. Cameron [1951 -] found the required logic, defined ontology and completed teleology with an additional theory about historical development that works in tandem with dialectical movement.

Ontology is the National Mind—Individual Mind relationship presented in my previous essay.

National Mind and Individual Mind were constructed by the interplay between political actualities and psychological symbols. The associations are so accurate, immanence reveals a deeper, creative dimension. Investigation of the creative cause, rationalises the logos, entitling Idealism to redefine and receive logic.

In my first essay, I established how Idealism was more abstract than empiricism. The creative cause is further removed: empiricism is one level of abstraction, immanence a second level and the creative cause is a third level of abstraction.

Teleology is determinism in history. The West, alone, has completed its teleology. This achievement was necessary for ontology to be recognised. Teleology is a development that empiricists cannot believe possible. Purposefulness is found in metaphysical ‘patterns in history’. They constitute evidence of the miraculous – a World-spirit has overseen human affairs. Teleology adds the historical dimension to the narrative of a nation’s development.

While Idealism rationalises mysticism and mysticism is appropriate training for an Idealist, “the nation as the objectification of what is True of the individual” was never mystical lore. Idealism found commonality with mysticism by being logical. By following a putative, absolute logic and working with its Truths, a rendezvous with the logos was possible if the presumed logic was authentic. Absolute relationships converge on the logos since it creates them, and logical accuracy had its reward in reaching the logos.

Idealism ends ideology. Liberalism warranted analysis for metaphysical components. The components survive as aspects of National Mind, but liberalism is lost because it is predicated on values. National Mind is the absolute basis for peace.

The demise of dualistic ideas and institutions that contradict non-duality is inevitable. Ontology denies the existence of goodness, so ethics has to go. Monism is replaced with dichotomous monism. Then it follows that religion as faith is replaced by esoteric religion.

Idealism restarts philosophy, instigates new priorities and defines what philosophy is. Relativistic studies such as empiricism will continue, but crucially, the dethronement of duality is effected. Our future existence depends on connections and this is precisely what non-duality consists of.

Scholars

The following is about mis-representation of Idealism by scholars and what prepares a definitive Idealist.

Encyclopaedic entries for Idealism brings out heroic scholarship that produces no light. Academics attempting to explain Idealism do a disservice by being their conformist selves. The key fact pertaining to Idealism, which is never mentioned, is that G. W. F. Hegel, sought a new logic. A new logic separates Idealism from the rest of philosophy.

A new logic is not like a different language. Nor is a new logic a ‘quantum shift’. A quantum shift is just a ‘step-up’. A new logic generates a new consciousness and realises a new reality. Hence, Idealism cannot to be critiqued until it becomes definitive, and when definitiveness arrives, dialectic is definitely not in a position to judge.

Encyclopaedic entries begin by explaining Idealism as a philosophy based on the premise that “reality is related to the contents of our mind”. It is a basic tenet, and I affirm it, but it is not a helpful tenet. It is no place to start, yet it gives a clear signal that dialectic will not serve as a mode of inquiry.

The nub of Idealism is: “The nation is the objectification of what is True of the individual.” Until this maxim is rationalised there is no merit in remembering wannabe Idealists. Between 1831, when Hegel died, and now, there are Idealism-related names. They did nothing to illuminate the above maxim, and the scholarship that records their efforts entrenches dialectical convention.

Consistent with the tradition of ‘fair-minded-ness’, scholars offer criticisms of Idealism. The negative opinions of B. Russell and G. E. Moore are sometimes used for this purpose. Idealism’s scholars do not realise that any valid criticism of Idealism automatically means the end of Idealism. To be absolute, Idealism must be beyond criticism, to the strictest degree. Idealism cannot afford to realise an antithesis. A valid argument – not necessarily a winning argument – is sufficient to be an antithesis and nullify Idealism. That, and not the criticisms of B. Russell and G. E. Moore is the issue. With such gaffes, conventional minds demonstrate how poorly metaphysics is perceived and how much they are captives of empiricism.

Definitive Idealism needed three conditions; 1. It is time-dependent; 2. amateur-reliant; and, 3. predicated on total originality.

1. Ontology was impossible till time [teleology] delivered mature liberalism. I previously said, “Idealism ends ideology. Liberalism warranted analysis for metaphysical components.” Resolving capitalism versus socialism [which is what liberalism achieves] elicits logic and begins the systematising. We need the lessons of history to appreciate ontology’s components.

2. Idealism is a school of thought that does not benefit from schooling! A candidate for Idealism, upon realising that conventional philosophy is useless, teaches himself mysticism and tries to find Truth. My success with ontology was due to being oblivious of Hegel’s ontology [which was un successful], and like I said, ontology is the master topic.

Amateurism is at the crux of the “What is philosophy about?” question. Philosophy is about Truth. Originality cannot be taught, so don’t learn philosophy. At this point in time when the world needs a genuine, absolute polestar, the history of philosophy is not fertile ground. The Absolute has been left to amateurs to find, since academics are too conventional to find it, and only an amateur is not “corrupted” by having to think a certain way to gain credentials.

That brings another problem. I am an amateur and know from experience academics are not interested in amateurs who claim to know the Absolute. Either they don’t believe you, or they do not want to believe you. Therefore, I must go where philosophy is not institutionalised and that means internet philosophy.

3. Logical diagrams are totally original, and thus is born non-duality. More originality than work with diagrams was required, because logic is not a case of doing the objectively-obvious. Definitive Idealism is the joining of disparate topics like politics and archetypes. This is not what convention teaches. Scholars don’t look for subjectivity in dimensions deeper than empiricism. They have no examples of metaphysical syntheses so they cannot imagine such possibilities. Scepticism of metaphysics thus become reassuring and reinforcing. The existence of mystics should be encouraging, but convention has extinguished their ability to be exceedingly original.

Next time: departures from convention

In other words re my earlier comment, how are you expecting people to react to a set of posts that are basically a lecture combined with an advertisement to buy a book you've written?

I'm trying to coax you to think a bit about how you're presenting yourself with respect to what you want to achieve ideally.

Yes, thanks Terrapin. I see from other posts, elsewhere, that you are sharp minded, so I think we can have a conversation. I see now that you want to make this topic interactive.

I am aware from the start of this non-interaction problem. I'm perfectly happy to be challenged while firmly believing I won't be. I am also trying hard to be as explicit as possible because, thanks to Hegel, Idealism has this reputation for being the most obtuse body of thought on the planet. There is a scene in a recent Science Fiction programme wherein a robot is reading Hegel!

My first three posts were unavoidably heavy-weight. I needed to establish my bona fides with landmark examples of Idealist logic. The first post is an historic piece in its own right because of the request for scientific substantiation for a metaphysical idea. It also helps to make my point about Truth versus truth when later, I criticise dialectical thinking. Adding Kant to my pantheon proves my point, but also achieves Mt Olympian remoteness. And thirdly, the non-duality matter, that is one of the big question related to thinking differently from the norm. Metaphysics / Idealism must be a departure from dialectic. How do you depart from objectivity? Can you actually rationalise in another manner? It is another crucial starting point.

Perhaps I cannot be interactive. The Absolute does literally dictate. What is the alternative strategy? -- Try to fascinate.

Once I get started on the termination of ethics, I go the full distance. It will shock the non-philosophical. I also upset the status quo in religion. The gulf between exoteric and esoteric religion is enormous. It is not impossible for Christians to migrate to the esoteric because the Holy Trinity is an anthropomorphic creation doctrine. Adjust the symbols and there is harmony based on metaphysical incisiveness. That adjustment is not to be under-estimated, it is like springing from childishness to middle aged maturity. If leaving childish things is not easy for Christians, how will it impact on Moslems and Jews, which are dualistic faiths that don't have a stepping stone from the exoteric to the esoteric? The future of religion based on metaphysics and the esoteric is a conversation that will go on into the night, and the next morning. That is one downstream consequence.

Furthermore, there are geo-political consequences to genuinely absolute politics. Contrary to the fears of HexHammer [above], who confused absolutism with inquiries into the Absolute, it is totalitarian regimes that are in line for philosophical condemnation. Idealism reinterprets liberalism, takes its bones, which liberals never knew about and constructs a whole metaphysical system from that beginning. Credit to Keynesian liberalism, but not neoliberalism. So the modern version of liberalism is due a "tune-up", but that is nothing compared to Western Philosophy in Absolute form censoring the non-democratic world. I don't attend to this consequence in my book, but it is another subject that has everyone in politics and diplomacy talking into the night.

Big conversations follow, but the core philosophical development cannot be contentious. Even if I am seriously corrected in my estimation of the Absolute, enough has been said to dethrone dialectic and change must ensue -- there is no going back. The realisation of how important an interpretation of the Absolute is to personal, national and world affairs is quite staggering.

I was going to be provocative in my last post, but a storm in a tea cup is a distraction I don't need. You can guess that I think academics are incredibly insular and amazingly rigid in their commitment to objectivity, so they are affected by the attaining of their credentials. I wanted to get cheeky, but, what-the-hell.

Hopefully there will be a review or two before my essays run-out. At the present rate of one every three days they may last for a month. I plan to end on a teleological note which is the most accessible part of Idealism.

Thanks enormously for prompting this reply.

What Matters?

When minds concentrate on what philosophy is about, there is no escaping this edict: Philosophy is the captive of logic. Logic is the Way of the logos and it should impart absolute Truth. The Absolute is what matters.

Dialectic is not logic, so philosophy has been lead all over the place. Let us take a quick tour of dualistic philosophy.

In politics, the key question is, “What is civil society?” This has not been answered because the answer is absolute. [You will find the answer in the free 20% download as Figure 1.6. The logic of democratic capitalism.] The answer to the above question solves the ideology question.

Ideology is based on ethics, i.e. what is good in regards to political economy? Political economy is an existential issue and no-one backs objective truth to do the business. The absolute answer to the ‘civil society’ question also puts ethics ‘to bed’. Actually, ‘gives ethics the boot’ is more to the point.

History only gets interesting when Idealism holding forth about great designs. The rest is third division arguments about Hitler’s diaries – you know what I mean – arguments over the objective facts of history. After Idealism, historicism is a place for researchers.

Epistemology enjoys its prominence because objective truth is a dodgy quantity. Epistemology cannot straighten-out ethics, so how can it hope to sort out truth?

Empiricism is sound in pure science. It will happily continue until the planet is wrecked. In social science it is not so reliable. Results can be challenged and I offer election polling as typical of empiricism in human affairs.

So-called formal logic is lineal, mad, sad and hopeless.

You do realise that existentialists are not serious?

What the general populous wants from philosophy is absolute Truth. Only absolute Truth will earn respect and attract interest. I cannot envisage another development capturing the public’s interest. {Please contribute if you have an alternative.}

Dialectical inquiry into an absolute phenomenon is futile. There is no merit in political philosophy probing civil society. Existentialists focusing on ‘being’ are ineffectual. The search for truth about objective reality is twice deluded. Dialectic is immersed in appearances. Its truths are relative and limited by truth being a human concept.

The task is to transcend. Do we collectively recognise this? Have we given up on ethics and truth? “The times are a-changing”. The media currently enjoys calling this a post-truth age, given the style of Donald Trump. This is worth more than a smile. Topics on this forum are post-truth. Many times over, the proposer of a topic cannot anticipate a conclusive truth.

Dark horse and only horse
Philosophy needs a logic that squares with its etymology. Can requisites be more simple and complex? Idealism is the only branch of philosophy that seeks another logic; Idealism is the dark horse and only horse in the race.

Nailed to the door of philosophy departments, how would this assertion fare?

Next time: [invariably] More departures from convention.

More Departures from Convention

A new logic denotes new attributes for Truth.

The Void
Absolute Truth is and is-not. Parts to a whole share their existence with non-existence [there is a void].

In absolute terms, the opposite of something is not nothingness. An absolute proposition cannot afford an antithesis, and even ‘nothingness’ serves as an antithesis. Appearances and the void co-exist. The co-existence of the void with appearances is a mystical axiom and persons who know only objectivity are intrigued by this possibility.

Reality is due to dichotomies, i.e. yin—yang. When inquiring into a phenomenon we are apt to seek a monist cause. Of the individual we seek a self, but no centre of activity actually exists. This is True of ourselves as mind—body and it is True of Mind as the source of existence.

Dichotomous causation accommodates something and nothingness. The key question: What is the focus of a dichotomy? A dichotomy is without a focus, i.e. it is something and nothing.

The something—nothing dichotomy is incidental to things existential. Something and nothing are not causing creation, e.g. something is not yin and nothingness is not yang. Personally, the explanation for the void is not fascinating. There are more important relationships to take cognition of, but the ability to accommodate the void helps establish my bona fides.

No Proof
Absolute Truth cannot be proved.

Absolute Truth is not accompanied by proof. Proof is attendant upon objective truth, but nothing can be ancillary to Truth, i.e. nothing can be outside of the Absolute.

Conventional thinkers will think that an absolute proposition without proof is next to a failure. Paradoxically, proof would disprove Truth.

The absence of proof for Truth is compensated for by the enormity of the insights that accompanies Truth. Absolute Truth beggars proof. Consider how the three truths of the Special Theory of Relativity gained coherence instead of being three weird facts. Systemic Truths are connected, so consistency and scope confound received notions of evidence.

Connections
Turning to a positive trait, Truth is strong on connections. This has been demonstrated by the Special Theory of Relativity. The individual—nation relationship is the cornerstone of Idealism and it is all about connections.

No Meaning
Absolute Truth has no meaning. The absence of meaning in absolute relationships is not significant.

Meaning exists between dialectical relationships. Meaning augments truth and through connotations truth accumulates sentiments. Absolute Truth is based on reciprocals. Reciprocals have no meaning.

No Emotion
An aspect of the Absolute that could be overlooked is the absence of emotion. There is no way that emotion can connect with the Absolute. There is such a thing as beatific rapture that connects with the [Holy] Spirit, and lucky you if you know of it, but that is removed from mundane emotion.

Meaning connects emotion to truth and dualistic cultures use emotion to implant ideas rather than using reason. It is impossible to use emotion to understand Truth.

Normality
From no emotion, we transition to an important topic. Normality is a first cousin of Truth. Who gets emotional about normality? – No-one. And no-one can reach Truth via emotion because Truth has no emotional resonance.

Try to define normality. The inability of dialectic to define normality divulges dialectical partiality. Normality is aligned with Truth, while dialectic is constantly ‘relative’. Synonyms for ‘partial and relative’ are ‘biased and unbalanced’.

Normality is mystical. You may intuit normality but you cannot rationalise it. Dialectic is too partial [relative] to know normality. Logic is required to elicit normality, but when found, normality does not have its own ‘voice’. Normality is not a fully-formed concept. Normality is an abbreviated version of logic that serves as a test for logic, i.e. “Is this logical conclusion, normal?”.

It would be wonderful if we could articulate normality because then there would be no need of ethics. In case you had been fooled, ethics is not normality.

Reality
If normality had a ‘voice’ it would join logic and mysticism in explaining reality. Metaphysical reality is connected ‘ordinariness’. Once relevant parts are connected, nothing becomes special. For dialectic, reality is parts and everything is special. Dialectic recognises individual parts and each part is separately the subject of its attention.

Is reality connected or disconnected? Common-sense says reality is connected, though dialectic cannot see it. Logic is connections and once a metaphysical whole is understood it is appreciated that dialectic is an impoverished view of the world.

I will come back to the topic of normality.

Next: A short essay will detail two more features of non-duality, then I begin to take duality apart.