The Absolute

[Joe]

On May 12, 12:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Repetition does not truth make.
>
> Again, you entirely misstate my assertion.
>
> I have lost all hope for an honest conversation with you Brock.
>
> I know that you are well versed enough to know what ‘the absolute’ is.
> I also strongly suspect that you are well aware that that I’m not
> saying anything about ‘absolute concepts’ in the way you are
> presenting the words. I am talking about ‘the absolute’ – that which
> is not contingent and has no components. I also talk about relative
> (words and concepts).
>
> No doubt, these notions are anathema to your beliefs about your
> theology so you would naturally wish to reject and/or ignore them.
>
> God is not a concept. No doubt you have a concept of god.

The above was in the thread, "Moderation," where, agreedly, it does
not belong. I note that after stating above, "I have lost all hope
for an honest conversation with you Brock," ornamentalmind did appear
to give up that hope with his very next post, as evidenced by his
reference to the Doors concert.

BE THAT AS IT MAY: I hope OM, and others, won't give up *all* hope of
*ever* having an honest conversation about such a pertinent topic as,
"the Absolute."

I, at least, for one, think it is pertinent. I am, admittedly, well-
versed enough to know exactly what OM was referring to, and will not
pretend otherwise. Especially since he states it outright, to stave
off all possible confusion. Thus,

"I am talking about ‘the absolute’ – that which is not contingent and
has no components."

Now he goes on to say to Brock,

"No doubt, these notions are anathema to your beliefs about your
theology so you would naturally wish to reject and/or ignore them."

Now I cannot speak for Brock, so I will leave it to him to affirm or
deny or ignore as he sees fit. I can say, however, that the notion of
the Absolute is ABSOLUTELY (grin) NOT antithetical nor anathema to
*my* "beliefs about my theology," which is a cumbersome phrase, and
should better be stated, "my theology," or, if I may be so bold (and I
will), simply, "theology."

OM says, "God is not a concept. No doubt you have a concept of god."

Interesting. John Lennon wrote, "God is a concept by which we measure
our pain." Also interesting. For some who profess atheism, God is
*only* a concept, and can be nothing more. But I prefer what OM said,
"God is not a concept."

God is the Absolute.

But according to Wikipedia, "The Absolute is the concept of. . ."

Arggh! What are we to do??

Allow me to paraphrase OM for my purposes here: The absolute is not a
concept. No doubt you have a concept of the Absolute.

Let's go back to Wiki for a moment.

"
The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which
transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes
used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine", especially, but
by no means exclusively, by those who feel that the term "God" lends
itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions.
"

Now for myself, I have to say I don't know exactly what OM was getting
at when he said to Brock that "these notions are anathema to your
beliefs," but I have an inkling. I will remain, however, in letting
Brock speak for himself on the subject should he so desire. What I'm
not too sure about with regard to OM's remark is whether he thought it
was anathema to Christian belief in general or only to Brock and
perhaps those Christians who more nearly share his particular belief-
set.

For me, the Absolute is God. I don't agree with those who claim the
traditional concepts of God are "too anthropomorphic." To say God is
anthropomorphic is to have it backwards. Rather, it is man who is
"deomorphic," meaning to say that we are created in the Divine image,
and not the other way around. Calling God anthropomorphic is usually
a tactic of atheists. That said, however, I also think it is naive to
assign our petty foibles and idiosyncrasies to God. He is the
Absolute, which is to say He is beyond all conceptions we may form of
Him.

For me, it is useful to map theology to mathematics, to some degree.
Mathematics is the realm of logical rigidity, and it is my contention
that we can obtain some rigidity in our metaphysics by allowing a
mapping to mathematics. I say that it is possible to obtain some
understanding of metaphysical truth by means of analogy. This is not
a new principle in theology by any means. But by contrast to
analogies to other realms, analogies to mathematics have a precision
that we simply cannot find anywhere else, for reasons that may or may
not be obvious. Mathematics is pure logic, unencumbered by the
inconvenience of physical reality. Physical reality is the world of
estimates; in mathematics, we encounter the exact.

It seems to me that the Absolute has manifested in various ways to
various peoples at various times. I will stick with those with which
I am more conversant; no doubt there are others I will fail to
mention. In the Western Tradition known as the Kabbalah or Qabala,
there is the Tree of Life, and above it, that from which it is said to
emanate --- the Ain Soph Aur, or Ain Soph, or Ain. At the top of the
Tree of Life is Kether, One, and above Kether, as that from which
Kether emanates, is Zero. That Qabalistic Zero is the metaphysical
Absolute. Going to the East, we find the philosophy of Taoism, and
the primordial Tao, from which everything else springs. This is the
same metaphysical Absolute. It was known to the ancient Chinese as
surely as it was known to the ancient Hebrews. Moving from China to
India, we find the Brahman, the Primal ground of Being. According to
the Advaita Vedanta, the Brahman is the Source of all including all
the gods as well as all matter and form. But according to the Gaudiya
Vaishnava, the Brahman is one aspect of Krishna, Who is the Original
God. Besides their idea of Tao, the ancient Chinese also have the
idea of Shang Ti, the Supreme Ruler of the universe. All of these are
variously conceptions or at least notions of one and the same
underlying Reality that we have been calling the Absolute.

Mathematically, it is the Origin, whence all numbers arise.

The Absolute is most certainly not the property or sole province of
only one people, or one philosophy, or one religion, or one view of
God. The simple evidence of this is the preponderance of references
to it throughout all the philosophies and religions of the world. In
fact, we may truly say, I think, that the whole aim of religion is to
find union with it, that is, to unite finite man with the Absolute,
and the various religions of man have all expressed this problem and
possible solutions in various ways. But they are all essentially
talking about the same thing.

All concepts of sin, salvation, preaching, etc., etc., aside --- there
is evidently something to be done. There are evidently ways that have
been advanced, to do it. That which is to be done is to reunite ("re-
lig") the microcosm with the macrocosm, to restore the balance to that
(life) which has fallen out of whack. To bring all of Creation back
to the Primordial Harmony that exists within each of us as a seed,
seemingly as a dim memory, or a longing. But each one of us ---
microcosms --- has direct control only over ourselves, so it is up to
each one of us to seek out that harmony in whatever ways we so choose.

Maybe some ways work better than others. It is possible, no?

[ornamentalmind]

I too found the Wikipedia definition(s) to be lacking in insight. Over
the years, I've mostly pointed to www.dictionary.com and their entries
that are nouns (n.), *not* the ones that are adjectives.

Of course, since words are subjective, about the best one can do in
print is approach it through negative theology.

[Joe]

On May 15, 11:36 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I too found the Wikipedia definition(s) to be lacking in insight. Over

> the years, I've mostly pointed towww.dictionary.comand their entries

> that are nouns (n.), *not* the ones that are adjectives.
>
> Of course, since words are subjective, about the best one can do in
> print is approach it through negative theology.
>

Go ahead! I am interested to hear your thoughts on it, or accounts of
your experiences, whatever you've got.

[ornamentalmind]

Most people know what negative theology is... for those who don't,
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

On May 21, 11:47 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 11:36 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I too found the Wikipedia definition(s) to be lacking in insight. Over

> > the years, I've mostly pointed towww.dictionary.comandtheir entries

[Joe]

I know what negative theology is.

Here we are on a discussion forum. You brought up the idea of the
Absolute in another thread. I thought you might like to share some of
your thoughts or experiences.

For example, by alluding to negative theology you are implying that
the Absolute has something in common with God. Care to elaborate?

Or, if you'd rather not say anything at all, then by all means, just
continue to say nothing. But here, we are on a discussion forum.

On May 22, 12:27 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[e_space]

come on now joe ... you must be aware that you do not always respond
to the questions that are asked of you, as is evident in another
current thread ... please dont be accusing people of things that you
are "guilty' of yourself ... at least he isnt avoiding issues by
referring to them as "reactionary crap" is he?

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

"...Of course, since words are subjective, about the best one can do
in
print is approach it through negative theology..." - OM

Joe, we've had discussions on this in the past. Here and numerous
places elsewhere I've pointed out the 3 Minds as tenets:

1. Relative/Subjective Mind – Words and Concepts
2. Absolute/Objective Mind – No components
3. Ornamental Mind – Union of 1 & 2 Consubstantially

I’ve also attributed this specific schema to Ichazo elsewhere so will
do it again here.

I find it to be an accurate representation.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe]

I find the same thing expressed by Lao Tzu,

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

Thanks, OM!

On May 22, 7:57 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[e_space]

re: "The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth " ... and here i
thought it was called "God" and was of a masculine genetic
compilation ...

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe]

The things you discover, when you open your eyes!

[e_space]

my eyes are wide open thank you, but they are not being used to read
the words of men about such an important topic ... maybe you should
try it some time? never know, you may enjoy experience over
hearsay ... light instead of reflection ... i know i do!

> ...
>
> read more »

[SM]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:42 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

my eyes are wide open thank you, but they are not being used to read
the words of men about such an important topic ... maybe you should
try it some time? never know, you may enjoy experience over
hearsay ... light instead of reflection ... i know i do!

e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

malarkey

 

[ornamentalmind]

One more fairly good definition for the ineffable:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01060c.htm


On May 24, 5:21 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:42 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > my eyes are wide open thank you, but they are not being used to read
> > the words of men about such an important topic ... maybe you should
> > try it some time? never know, you may enjoy experience over
> > hearsay ... light instead of reflection ... i know i do!

> e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > malarkey

[Mardi]

Yes! the beauty of Lao Tzu's concise expression
"the nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth - the named is the
mother of myriad things"

The Absolute (non-dual, unconditioned, incomprehensible) is the
origin, source - non-separate from the manifest cosmos.

The creator (I love that the creator is Mother for Lao Tzu!) is
separate from, other than the creation.

Both are God - the Absolute nameless origin and source which is
unqualified Being as such, and the creator to whom we attribute
infinite qualities and attributes, from whose infinity all the
infinite variety of creation has come into being.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

It is in this way that the use of the notion of 'creation' differs
from how it is more commonly used in theology.

> ...
>
> read more »