Tread carefully, dog is God read backwards. What if dog’s read backwards?

Anubis anyone.

I agree, and for me this means that gravity is a definite part of our experience whereas a universal mind is not―the latter is purely speculative.

So what?

I can’t (Kant) see a disagreement between us, it’s more a difference of emphasis. That looking through different ends of the telescope thing again. You emphasise the importance of proof and the empirical. Me pretty much the opposite, the emphasis on what can’t be proved, or focussing on what can’t be quantified in the empirical. Although we both are concerned with sticking to the truth and not wondering down blind alleys.

I recommend finishing the whole paragraph for yourself as paragraphs are the basic unit in this writing.

Yes, I’ve already realised this. It’s almost like prose.

I don't see gravity as a good analogy because its effects are measurable. I believe that the idea of independently existing things makes sense―others see problems with it, but it seems those problems stem form assumptions that I don't share.

The difference between the action of gravity on our experience and the action of a universal mind, for example, may be that one appears in the external world of appearances where we measure things and the other doesn’t. The latter might have an action in us, which we can’t measure, or isolate as a property.
Anyway, I was using it to illustrate that there are things/forces in our world which literally affect every movement we make about which we have little understanding.

The idea of a shared or collective mind is not logically contradictory, so it makes sense in that sense, but I think the idea is extremely underdetermined by our everyday experience.

Quite, but as I say, it’s presence in our lives might just be inobvious, or orthogonal to our preoccupations.

Referring back to Kant, he is pointing out the limits of our understanding of the world we find ourselves in by delineation the noumenon. Also in Eastern philosophies, such concepts are used the the contemplation of our nature and the realisation of worlds, or realms accessed via meditation, or revelation.
I have an affinity with these concepts as I am concerned with realising our limitations and developing ways to view our limitations in the context of our lives (living a life), for example.

Thanks, but my laptop has been in the drawer for the last few years. I only use an IPad now.

I’ve read the passages you mentioned, he’s explaining how in considering time and causation we can conclude that things have an existence in themselves (in it’s self).

I’ve also had a look at noumenon, I can’t unfortunately copy and paste the text from this pdf. So I will have to paraphrase, the passage I’m thinking of is to be found in B311, page 350, in the text.

It basically explains that noumenon are all things thought about, or which could potentially be thought about, but which are not brought into thought by sensible intuition( thinking about things we experience through the senses), which have an empirical basis. As such they are thought about through insensible intuition, (our imagination) or thought divorced from empirical understanding. That by definition they cannot be thought about, because any thought we do have is conditioned by our sensible intuition. So they are an absence of thought. They cannot be thought in any way. They form a boundary of sensible thought. They are not invented arbitrarily, but are connected with the limit of sensible intuition. Yet without being able to posit anything positive outside the domain of the latter.

They are a limit, or boundary, beyond which we cannot pass. But enable us (hypothetically) to see the the boundary of thought and understanding.

From the text;

Now in this way our understanding acquires a negative expansion, I.e. it is not limited by sensibility(influence of the senses), but rather limits it by calling things in themselves(not considered as appearances) noumena. But it also immediately sets boundaries for itself, not cognising these things through categories, hence merely thinking them under the name of an unknown something.

The way I see it is as a boundary like a line, or plane in three dimensional space. On one side is the world of appearances, the empirical world we know. While on the other side is an absolutely undefined realm, which is not nothing, because it is defined by being on the other side of the boundary, (which certainly exists), because it is defined by the world of the senses. But we can’t project, or say anything about it, it is blank.

However this is not to say there isn’t anything there, there might be. There might be more there than on the side of the senses. But we have absolutely no way of seeing, or knowing that. We are entirely limited to the world of senses and appearances.

Regarding the Ālaya-Vijñāna there is also a Theosophical idea designated the "Akashic Records", which I think bears some resemblance to the Buddhist idea. It seems that idealist thinkers have long recognized the explanatory need for some kind of collective consciousness as a substitute for the independent actuality of physical existents.

There are ways around this*, you know how gravity works at a distance, but absent the theory of relativity, there is no known physical mechanism by which the force is exerted. Relativity accounts for it, but is little more than a descriptive, rather hypothetical explanation, a mathematical mapping of the relation between bodies, forces and energy. Perhaps there is the equivalent between minds**. Also there is the idea, which dovetails to an extent with idealism, of all beings/organisms, or more pertinently living entities, as one entity, branched, or budded off into separate organisms in the realm of manifestation/objectification. With the root unseen, or known by us rather like the root of gravity being unseen, or known.


* although I don’t see the need for such aversion to the idea of some connection, or lineage, or mind between beings. I can understand the aversion found amongst Western philosophers and Buddhist scholars. But for me, I see, a kind of apologetics, or fig leaf being used when such ideas come to the surface.

** I use mind in a broader sense than the thinking, or computational intelligence, often referred to. Rather the animating living aspect of being, which incorporates the whole electrical cohesion of the body.

Thanks, I was just about getting my head around it. I’m there now. Sounds about right for how I treat the issue.

Thanks for linking to the text, I’ll have a look.

I’m finding this almost unintelligible. Can you summarise in layman’s terms what is being said about these boundaries?
I’m new to Kant, so haven’t yet got a handle on his style.

Well I’ve had a look at what the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy has to say about it;

From point 6.1;

If by a noumenon we understand a thing insofar as it is not an object of our sensible intuition, because we abstract from the manner of our intuition of then this is a noumenon in the negative sense. But if we understand by that an object of a non-sensible intuition then we assume a special kind of intuition, namely intellectual intuition, which, however, is not our own, and the possibility of which we cannot understand, and this would be the noumenon in a positive sense. (B307)

Noumena in a positive sense are simply noumena as Kant originally defined that notion in the A edition: objects of an intellectual (non-sensible) intuition. The negative concept of noumena, however, is simply the concept of objects that are not spatiotemporal (not objects of our sensible intuition, namely space and time). But then it follows that things in themselves are noumena in the negative sense, retrospectively clarifying the passage from the A edition quoted immediately above, where Kant seems to draw from the “Transcendental Aesthetic” the conclusion that there are noumena: the concept of appearance requires that something appears, and this must be a negative noumena.

From point 6.2;

Another way to appreciate this distinction is to consider the difference in why these notions of object (noumena, transcendental object) are unknowable by us. We cannot cognize things in themselves because cognition requires intuition, and our intuition only ever presents appearances, not things in themselves. We cannot cognize the transcendental object because the transcendental object is a purely schematic, general idea of empirical objectivity. Whenever we cognize a determinate empirical object we are cognitively deploying the transcendental concept of an object in general, but we are not coming to know anything about the object of that concept as such.

This is Kant’s point in “phenomena and noumena” when he writes:

This transcendental object cannot even be separated from the sensible data, for then nothing would remain through which it would be thought. It is therefore no object of cognition in itself, but only the representation of appearances under the concept of an object in general, which is determinable through the manifold of those appearances. (A250–1)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

From this it looks like Kant saw noumena as intellectual concepts, referring to something entirely inaccessible to us, which is inferred. Being intellectual they are entirely abstract and an invention of the human thinking mind. So we cannot say anything about what they are, or aren’t. But they are inferred because if we experience appearances, then they must be appearances of something. Something which is inaccessible to us, because if they were accessible to us, they would be appearances.

He is also saying that transcendental objects, our conception of appearances, cannot be separated from the appearances. So in a sense we are tied to the acceptance of appearances during the experiencing of them.

A double whammy, not only can’t we say anything about noumena, but we are confined within a world of appearances, so can’t say anything about anything else (apart from appearances), either.

You’re both looking down different ends of the telescope. That’s why it looks different.
— Punshhh

I thought this comment referred to a conversation we were having in the other 'idealism' thread. I'm not so sure what it refers to in this thread.

It was a joke, about people looking at the same thing from different perspectives.

So is it the case that whenever this perspective is proposed, it invariably originated from a study of Eastern religious ideas?

Nevertheless the basic point that Magee makes stands - that insight into transcendental idealism does require a kind of fundamental shift in perspective, akin to a gestalt shift but in a more general way, and it’s not easy to come by.

I would use the word orientation in that it is a question of perspective, or direction. A viewpoint, or gaze which then sees something already known, or commonly seen in a different light.

A development within the self, or being, in which, (by analogy), a lens is cleared (a veil lifted), or brought into clearer focus. Allowing more light through (illuminating further), or a broader, or deeper perspective.

A general observation on many of the comments being made in this thread:

the assumptions of 'the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect' enter unawares into the way in which the statements of transcendental idealism are understood, so that these statements appear faulty in ways in which, properly understood, they are not. Such realistic assumptions so pervade our normal use of concepts that the claims of transcendental idealism disclose their own non-absurdity only after difficult consideration, whereas criticisms of them at first appear cogent which, on examination, are seen to rest on confusion. We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions, and thus achieve an understanding of transcendental idealism which is untainted by them. This, of course, is one of the explanations for the almost unfathomably deep counterintuitiveness of transcendental idealism, and also for the general notion of 'depth' with which people associate Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy. Something akin to it is the reason for much of the prolonged, self-disciplined meditation involved in a number of Eastern religious practices.
— Schopenhauer's Philosophy, Bryan Magee, p106, 'Subjects and Objects'

Yes, this crisis/initiation is foundational in Eastern religions and spirituality. It’s promising to see that philosophers are making it over this hurdle too.

Let’s see how many other hurdles they have jumped.

You’re both looking down different ends of the telescope. That’s why it looks different.

Hopefully you get the idea that no matter how long I go on EVERYTHING I can say is noumena negatively ONLY and can NEVER be positively captured.

YES, I HEAR YOU, I UNDERSTAND. I’ll have take your word for that for now, until I’ve read more about it.

I think it is a good place to begin when trying to understand the kind of problems that arise in human experience including how we articulate what consciousness is and how it relates to the physical world as well as our metaphysical concepts about the world -- which are necessarily connected in some fashion.

Agreed, I have been doing the same from a different school for decades along with using it in my practice.

The closest other thing I can think of that covers this kind of concept is probably Dao/Tao (the 'way'). More poetic than Kant but far less precise. If either works for you then that is probably enough.

A little less wordy though, the gist is the same.

So presumably there are a number of philosophers around who don’t like the idea?

A shape with no edges is not a shape at all. If there can exist something 'shape-like' beyond sapce and time it does not 'exist' in any sense we can frame and if not soley separate we can appreciate it. This is the difference between being open to discovery by us and not existing, but 'not existing' is a concept that we appreciate not that we do not.

So there may be a sqircle somewhere, but because we can’t frame it, we can’t say it exists. Because to say it exists we would have to define (definitively) it. But we can’t define it, so we can’t say it exists, or that it doesn’t exist?

But surely we can talk about the neumenon and conclude that it exists? But we can’t define it, because it has no shape, colour, dimension(as we know them). This is not to say it doesn’t have attributes like this, but that we don’t know what they are.
Also, if we do attempt to define them, we will only be using attributes that we know about from the phenomenal world and by definition neumena are outside of the phenomenal world. So we would be describing things in the phenomenal world and attributing them to something outside that world. Which we can’t do.

So we can say it exists, provided we don’t define it (because that would miss the mark). Because without it, the phenomenal world wouldn’t exist and the phenomenal world exists.

Seems straightforward enough to me, I don’t know what all the fuss is about.

Surely we have just defined a necessary being?

But it doesn't follow logically that speculative talk about what it might be is meaningless.
— Janus

But it is likely to be dogmatic.

This is why in mysticism the intellect, like the ego is held on a leash and is only of secondary importance (while acknowledging that they are necessary in the cogitation of experience).

The primary means is in seeking to develop the whole being. So that rather than to work out truths, one walks into/upon truths, as if to walk into a room, or through a door.

I’m freeing myself from belief. Yes beliefs in their barest form as you define them are used and required in carrying out the necessities of life.
But why taint the rest of one’s interests with it. It ties one to a rigidity of thought and confines one to a hierarchy of sorts of what is true, or not true. One is then tied to these conclusions and loyalties.

In the practice I describe, such rigidity is stifling. In order to develop a sensitivity to nature and a wisdom regarding reality. It is important to free the mind(not just the intellectual parts), from this and become receptive to more subtle activity in one’s life and surroundings. Yes there is thinking, analysis and the development of philosophies, ideologies, after the fact. But this is as I say secondary and only provides a helpful feedback where appropriate to the sense of communion I describe.
To insist that belief plays a role in this is to imply a role played by the ego and thinking processes and their conclusions. But, it is primary to remove this aspect of being from the practice prior to and in order to carry it out.

It is an act of being, akin to the act of being, with presence, practiced all the time by our cousins, the plants and animals. Who don’t have the intellectual mind, to confuse the issue.

Of course you can say it is necessary for you―but perhaps that is just because you have come to think it is necessary for you, that is you have come to believe it.

It is not necessary to live a life, so does not come under the purview of necessary beliefs. It is an interest, a leisure, pursuit, an interest.

There is a guiding process going on, but it is intuitive, not rational. Is there a necessity for intuitive activity in the mind to require beliefs? In order to carry out its intuiting?

This is a 'yogic pun', of course.

Pun is in my name (;-)

You must understand, I rarely have the gall to interject myself into such established arguments (60 pages and counting!) unless, shall we say, the wine glass has been broken out. :smile:

No worries, I enjoy what you write.

One might consider such a sentence to be superfluous considering, surely, there are people alive, perhaps even living quite well, who don't hold the beliefs you do.

I was using the phrase to say that I hold as few beliefs as I can get away with. I would rather do away with the word completely, but I accept it is used a lot, with various meanings. So I try to keep it to precise definitions where it is used. Janus was asking about my beliefs, which is why I wrote that post and explained how I arrive at intellectual and other positions without having beliefs about them.

Loyalty, eh. Heh. Sorry. such terms distract me due to the complex history of my own life experience.

I seem to have lived a charmed life and often realise that others have had more complex and, or traumatic, conflicted lives. I realise how fortunate I am in this regard and yet still have all the usual emotional, anxiety, confidence hang ups that most people have. Even after many years of defusing and attending to them.

I know a person who always has something to worry about, sometimes he does actuality have a problem, even though often I can see that he caused it himself. Made a rod for his own back, so to speak. Now he has retired and shouldn’t have a care in the world. But is still just as worried, seems to have the weight of the world on his shoulders at times. But it is all of his own making and it doesn’t matter what you say to him, he never reaches the point where it is sorted out and he can just sit back and enjoy life.

I did say;
‘ I don’t hold beliefs other than what beliefs are necessary to live a life.’

So here is my belief system. Also beliefs are intellectually defined and held positions, or loyalties. I am relegating such things to the chitta chatta of my mind while continuing to go about living my life.

You must believe that it is possible to attain wisdom and that some spiritual teaching or teachings can help you with that.

Believe is a vague term, so I can’t answer that without a definition. I don’t hold beliefs other than what beliefs are necessary to live a life. However I lead a life informed by what I have discovered or adopted as a practice for a period of time. So this allows guidance in how I live from myself, or other sources. I have tried a variety of practices and understandings from schools and took only what fitted my path and kept the remainder at arms length. So don’t adhere to a belief system.
I am on a path of seeking guidance in this from something like an inner being, or soul, or whatever you want to call it, within my being. Independent of rational thought, although there is a a process of intuition and contemplation involved, but secondary in importance.

As such beliefs are relegated to a thinking mind, or commentary on the periphery after the fact. An insight might take the form of an encounter with an insect, or the play of light, or noticing of a weird juxtaposition, or series of random events in the world which for a moment have a meaning. The meaning is not necessarily intellectualised, or contemplated. The idea is to ease the path of the development whatever way seems appropriate.

You are assuming this world is an illusion. How could you know that when everything you could possibly know comes form your experience in this world?

Know independently, yes.

I was referring to the spiritual teachings.

As to my own beliefs (I don’t hold beliefs, rather I seek wisdom), part of my predisposition on these issues is formed by spiritual teachings. Although, I pare it down to the bare minimum, so have very little in what could be described as beliefs. I am working on the hypothesis that physical material and the physical world is a concrete representation of noumena which is so dense and rigid that an entire cosmology of powerful forces is required to sustain it. Rather like if you imagine a delicate melody rendered in concrete blocks that can only be heard by physically banging them together.
As to the details of how, or why, or what, I withhold judgement.

Actually Māyā is Hindu terminology. The Buddhist term is saṃsāra, ‘cyclical existence’.

Yes, l presupposed that saṃsāra was part of maya forgetting its root. Thanks for putting me right.

Unfortunately that is not a sensible, or even meaningful, thing to say―better just to remain silent. If philosophy is about anything it is certainly not about talking nonsense.

But we were always going to hit this wall once straying into Buddhism. In Buddhism this whole world of appearances is nothing but maya. So how can these appearances, or a being enthralled by them, know, or account for the noumena when they themselves are part of the illusion?

It was this realisation that led the Buddha to sit under the bodhi tree.

It’s a bit too radical for me, I don’t usually go further east than Hinduism. Although I do generally consider the phenomenal world we know to be an artificial construct.

Well, putting religion and spirituality to one side, no. But is there a good reason not to?
— Punshhh

Religion and spirituality are not really discursive endeavors. Is there a good reason not to put religion and spirituality aside when doing philosophy?

Sorry, I meant, is there a good reason not to believe in a demiurge. I’m happy to keep religion and spirituality to one side.

Cogent means clearly (and thus clearly expressible) and convincing, so I asked whether you had a clearly expressible and convincing reason to believe in a demiurge.

Yes, I see now. I was interpreting the word belief in its religious context. Now I see that you were using it in the sense of ‘holding an opinion, or idea’.
I do have such an explanation, but whether it would be convincing , is unlikely. Because I became convinced by the idea myself, I doubt I could have been convinced of it by being told it. Or that I could necessarily convince someone else. As it is more of a lived experience, a journey.

Are you suggesting you have experienced the demiurge?

Yes, although it would have more likely have been a higher being(indicating there was a demiurge) But this is besides the point now, as we are putting spirituality to one side.

but I don't think the same applies with a demiurge

Agreed.

If we feel an unshakeable conviction regarding what it was an experience of, it will be enough to non-rationally convince us, but it will not be enough to non-rationally convince others unless they have a will to believe as we do.

Agreed, this is what I was getting at with ‘convincing’

I’ll put my idea again, in a simple form.

What we have is the coming together of two things spirit(not in the spiritual sense) and matter( a field of spatial temporal potentiality). This results in the diverse forms we find. But where ever we look, the two are wedded, that one can’t be teased from the other. Because what we see is neither(spirit, or matter) but the fruit of that union. Resulting in three things and a world that is neither spirit, or matter.

Perhaps. Do we have any cogent reason to believe in a demiurge, though, beyond the fact that it's (kind of) an imaginable possibility?

Well, putting religion and spirituality to one side, no. But is there a good reason not to?

I don’t see what belief has got to do with this, surely if something is cogent, it’s not a question of belief.

It wouldn’t be a unique situation, as a human is a colony of cellular organisms. And a beehive, a termites, or ants is a colony of colonies of cells. Each cell, while being alive, has no idea (pretending that a thinking being was able to experience the life of a cell) that it is part of a larger being, or how that would work. Likewise a human would have no idea of the larger colony (that they are a part of) as an entity, including through all knowledge discovered in our world.

I want to hear an actual argument for why space, time, differentiation, form, matter and all the rest cannot exist beyond the context of perception. And I should note, I acknowledge that if there is space, time, differentiation, things in general outside the context of perception, we should not expect them to be just as we experience and understand them. That would be naive realism, and I'm not arguing for that. I have in mind something along the lines of Ontic Structural Realism.

The Ontic structural realism, may be external and pre-existing to the perception of humanity (or any beings on earth), but intrinsic (internal and not pre-existing) to the perception of a greater being of which humanity is a constituent part, such as a demiurge.

So far, out of the things I mention and the way I define those we have seen :

Chaos (lack of distinction, not deterministic)
Simplicity (One thing which is composed of itself)
0 dimensional entity (Distances are not real-Ill get to that in a sec)
the big bang (beggining of Two, or the great split)
The One (lack of distiction, Chaos, infinite, simple and unique)

The universe cannot expand "outward" because, according to physics, there is no external reference point or boundary outside of it. The universe is not expanding into a pre-existing space; rather, space itself is stretching. This means that distances between points within the universe are increasing, but there is no external space into which it expands. Thus space is not made of actual space.

If the universe is stretching the way physics describe(not outwards but "inwards"), space is not composed of space but rather the effect of phenomena on matter.

This all sounds great, they are good ideas and pretty much everyone here would agree with the gist of it and already knew about it before you arrived. But I haven’t seen anything new here. These ideas might be new and profound to an ordinary person in the street. But you’ve come to a philosophy forum where people discuss, analyse, critique and rip apart ideas like this all day long. What did you expect?

I’m not the only one.
— Punshhh

I was referring to you, who says lots of things about the one and then says they are true etc.

Yes, I’m not denying that, with the use of infinity as you define it here. It all makes perfect sense and I have had a lot of these thoughts and contemplations myself over the years.
— Punshhh

Then you are contradicting yourself, in one responce youre saying that nothing can be said yet you agree it is infinite and have been contemplating on it, which one is it? You basically said that A=B and B=C yet A does not equal C. It is either infinite and this information is common, valid based on reason and perception, or it’s not.

I said it makes sense, not that I agreed with it. I remain open minded on the issue.

There is no sound of one hand clapping as it does not clap but itself, therefore there is no clapping, for this reason it is an invalid question and a subjective interpetation, we dont do that here.

Google ‘Koan’

Did I answer this question or not? The rationale is that we can do it and possibly should, the why we should is also included in the book, it is the return to the One. There is nothing besides ourselves stopping us from doing so.

You agreed with me that nought can be said about the one and then continued saying things about the one, claimed they are true and said here in this passage, that we can say things about the one.


In order to have a rational discussion, you have to adopt a position, or stance on an issue and stick to it. So that your interlocutor can critique, or agree with it. This does not mean you can’t change your mind, or approach in the discussion, but if you do, you should provide an explanation for it.

no one seems to notice this forum has been a stagnant pond years.

I was just getting ready to start discussing the pro’s and cons of Everythingism versus Nothingism with him. I’m not sure that would have enriched our experience much.

He would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

Belly laugh!!

Youre saying “the apophatic method is the* only way”, youre making a comparative claim, not necessarily apophatic.

I only adopted this position once you had agreed with me that nought can be said. If we are both in agreement about something, then we can take it as read, to assume it to be true for the sake of argument.
We, or I can’t be sure at all whether we are saying anything about it, or if we’re talking about it all the time, but just don’t realise it.

When youre saying “even the method itself cannot be defined or privileged”, then youre applying apophasis to the method itself, which is a kind of meta-apophasis.

This is a recognised technique, mainly adopted in Zen Buddhism in the form of a koan. For example;

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

The idea is to make one think harder, or realise the impossibility of answering some questions, or that the truth is not to be found in intellectualisation, but in the self, the being of the self, somehow.

Its like saying "no- we cant discuss it because the only way to discuss it(more accuratelly-or at all) is a non-discussion, meaning we can have no discussion on it", basically invalidating every single point without an argument.

Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didn’t you? If you didn’t then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. I’m perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it.

You are literally saying something about the One(that nought can be said). This is not the apophatic method.

I’m not the only one.

Everything that I have said so far holds ground and you know it, it is Simple (composed only of Itself), Unique (there is no other, it is singular and alone) and Infinite (has no defined form).

Yes, I’m not denying that, with the use of infinity as you define it here. It all makes perfect sense and I have had a lot of these thoughts and contemplations myself over the years.

I think though that we must accept at some point that whatever we say about it, or deduce, or work out. It can’t be tested, or proved and might not bear any relation to the truth about the matter. Because the reality might be totally different to what we are able to understand, might be entirely inconceivable to a creature like us, might be too obvious, or hidden in someway. Or that we can only talk about the things we have evolved to understand, in the world we find ourselves in. How to survive in an ecosystem and organise ourselves into groups, tribes.

I’m not trying to shut down debate, or say we shouldn’t even talk about it. We can talk about it and about the way we talk about it etc. On the understanding that we don’t know anything about it, other than what makes sense from our relatively insignificant position.

Personally I am more concerned with the understanding of existence through other forms or learning, knowing and understanding than the intellectual reasoning done by philosophers. More in the realms of meditation, communion, direct experience and developing affinities with nature.

I come to the forum for some light relief and to enjoy and exercise some intellectual rigour.

I also have already adressed this question before it was even asked, inside the book, here in the OP and in comments, I am quoting myself more than once for the same quote but since you missed it :

Apologies for not having read all of your posts, or your book. But unfortunately all I keep seeing is you saying things about the one about whom nought can be said. Even the apophatic approach is doing this, by saying things about it by negation. Literally nothing can be said, other than to indicate that it has something to do with a unity of all things.

I happen to be a mystic who uses the apophatic approach all the time and I certainly don’t say anything about this. I simply defer to thoughts about our local God, gods, demiurge, universe, realm etc. That this is no concern for me.

I suppose there is a role for explaining where we project the fruits of human intellect onto such subjects. But that is not saying anything about it as such, but rather about us.

All that it is required to be said is that nought can be said.

It seems to be true. Though one could also argue that the ability to do that was conferred by evolution and it looks as if the planet is taking action to restore balance.

Yes, but I would draw back to the idea of the organism and natural selection working in lockstep. And that of the two, the one which was adapting was the organism. But in humanity’s case, we abandoned the adaptation, broke the lockstep and adapted to what we thought rather than what natural selection dictated.

That humanity has broken free from the constraints of natural selection and is endangering the whole endeavour. Going off on an ego trip and trashing the ecosystem which brought her into being. So perhaps the planet is now taking action. But is that the inorganic planet, or the organic planet (the ecosystem) or both?

What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.

-Punshhh

Thats the whole point of the entire book, I don't understand where your misunderstanding lies so far.

But you have said a lot about the one about which nought may be said.

Isn’t that a contradiction?

“But can that which does not exist have anything pertaining or belonging to it? Of course not. Then the One has no name, nor is there any description or knowledge or perception or opinion of it... It is neither named nor described nor thought of nor known, nor does any existing thing perceive it.” - Saint Parmenides, 138b-c

We are getting there now.

What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.

Yes, but the lineage hasn’t finished yet. Who knows where it will go in the future.
Although, when it comes to the devastation of the planet, that turn of events happened when we had used intellect to subvert natural selection. Become too big for our boots.