On a serious note, I've always been drawn to the ineffable. — TheMadFool

And nothing wrong with that! The trick is to keep in mind what one is doing. Good sense can come from gazing at the ineffable; Kant showed that. The Greeks showed that. Even the Egyptians to some degree showed that. It seems that all sensible peoples arrive at that. The problem with most - all? - western religions is that they take the first and every spur line in to the dead-ends of the supernatural and ultimately the absurd and the ridiculous - and that's a shame because it need not be that way, and should not be that way.

Through simple engineering formulas for say the design of a building, aircraft, xcetera, as well as computing the laws of gravity, relativity, xcetera. — 3017amen

But the point is that if the absolute of existence - if it exists - can be evidenced - by experiment or theories - it would be just a version of it with deficiency, because we would making it "Be".

What puzzles me is that if the One possesses no attributes at all, — TheMadFool

Plotinus says that the One is "beyond all attributes". Therefore, it contains something that is seen as an attribute and is the attribute. Quoting Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one." What attribute is this, that can be seer and seen, is beyond our contemporary metaphysical knowledge - if by chance, the One exists -.

Infinity has an attribute - boundlessness. Plotinus' One has none. — TheMadFool

It must contain something, however, in the act of trying to abstract this "something beyond all attributes" we - according to Plotinus - have already introduced defects, simply because we are in and with existence.

in our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn in one way or another to the infinite. Whether it's an infinite tower of turtles , and infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Otherwise how do things-in-themselves exist? — 3017amen

I would still add the argument that because Men is finite, he tends to seek the absolute - infinite - to comfort himself that he is bound to existence.

Have you given any further thought to the video and how something that's absolute wouldn't require any outside/external data? — 3017amen

I am stuck with the reflection that:

"The One - or absolute - is something that "transcends" existence, however, through the use of language - which is a creation of a Being attached to existence; Men - this concept cannot be truly achieved, as it is something beyond our borders - here, I speak of our finitude - and it cannot be fully expressed either, since, for being absolute, infinity would be necessary to conceive it."

The only solution I see for this question is one where we "transcend" the boundaries of language. But still, we would be conceptualizing a flawed idea, as we still would "Be".

The One;

We are knowledgeable of the One;

As we Are, our knowledge of the One is deficient;

But through our deficient knowledge of the One, we know that it Is in some "higher" Existence (?) - Meaning (?) Purpose (?) Idea (?);

Next step?

Early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus — 3017amen

Plotinus wasn't christian, and his ideas - the three hypostasis of the world: One, Intellect and the Soul - were practically robbed by Christian theology and philosophy.

Critical Thinking and Innate Feelings. — Gnomon

Nietzsche already said that we should reconcile these two - Apollinian and Dionysian -:

"Much will have been gained for humanity once we have succeeded in apprehending directly-rather than merely ascertaining-that Men owes its continuous evolution to the Apollinian- Dionysian duality, even as the propagation of the species depends on the duality of the sexes, their constant conflicts and periodic acts of reconciliation."

Later, their Christian descendants, began to imagine the human Jewish Messiah as the super-human Christ, and eventually fragmented the One God of Monotheism into a Polytheistic pantheon : Father, Mother, Son, Holy-Spirit, and a panoply of Saints. So, it's obvious that an abstract absolute unitary notion of deity does not appeal to the average person. — Gnomon

As I always say:

"As the romans had a pantheon of Gods, we, in the contemporary world, have a pantheon of interpretations of God."

The Enformationism thesis — Gnomon

Even though I may disagree with you in some cases, I really do support that you should publish this eventually. We need revolutionary thinkers who are not afraid to express themselves.

As we Are, our knowledge of the One is deficient;

But through our deficient knowledge of the One, we know that it Is in some "higher" Existence (?) - Meaning (?) Purpose (?) Idea (?); — Gus Lamarch

High is relative to low, meaning is relative to meaningless, purpose is relative to purposelessness, but The One is a cool idea.

Next step? — Gus Lamarch

Experience it.

And nothing wrong with that! The trick is to keep in mind what one is doing. Good sense can come from gazing at the ineffable; Kant showed that. The Greeks showed that. Even the Egyptians to some degree showed that. It seems that all sensible peoples arrive at that. The problem with most - all? - western religions is that they take the first and every spur line in to the dead-ends of the supernatural and ultimately the absurd and the ridiculous - and that's a shame because it need not be that way, and should not be that way — tim wood

:up: :ok:

Plotinus says that the One is "beyond all attributes". Therefore, it contains something that is seen as an attribute and is the attribute. Quoting Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one." What attribute is this, that can be seer and seen, is beyond our contemporary metaphysical knowledge - if by chance, the One exists -. — Gus Lamarch

Plotinus, if you're reporting his views accurately and I'm sure you are, seems to be attempting to describe something beyond the reach of ordinary language. To be fair it must be pointed out that we're all familiar with ineffables with, that have, "attributes" - emotions. Emotions are felt and have distinct qualities to them which may be construed to be their attributes but a quick glance of the dictionary reveals that these distinct qualities ("attributes") don't figure in their definitions at all - that lexicographers are beating around the bush in their attempts to define emotions is patently clear. Could it be then that Plotinus' One has more to do with our emotional, limbic system rather than our rational, prefrontal cortex? All this reminds me of qualia and its significance to consciousness.

Another thing is the universe taken as a whole exhibits an odd behavior when we look at its attributes. Remember that it contains everything there is and if so, attribute-wise, it's a certain color and also not that color, it's in a certain physical state and also not in that state, etc. which should immediately make you think of yin-yang. Every attribute that the universe can be thought to possess, the universe also possesses the exact opposite attribute. These pairs of opposite attributes cancel each other out to the point that no attribute that can be ascribed to the universe remains and, drumroll please ( :joke: ) , we end up with a universe that is, as Plotinus said, "beyond all attributes".

Further, Wittgenstein's language game theory seems germane to Plotinus' One. Imagine I'm looking for an attribute that unifies all objects in the universe. I choose the attribute solid and then I begin to run the thread of solidness through objects in the universe - car, stone, bone, etc. - but the moment I encounter a liquid or a gas, I'd have to stop and choose another attribute but the same thing will happen with this attribute too. To make the long story short, there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. Any attempt to define the universe in terms of attributes is doomed to fail ergo, the One, the universe, is "beyond all attributes".

It must contain something, however, in the act of trying to abstract this "something beyond all attributes" we - according to Plotinus - have already introduced defects, simply because we are in and with existence. — Gus Lamarch

Read above.

The only solution I see for this question is one where we "transcend" the boundaries of language. But still, we would be conceptualizing a flawed idea, as we still would "Be". — Gus Lamarch

There are no boundaries intrinsic to language, it is inherently boundless. That language consists of boundaries is the notion which Wittgenstein reveals as false in his Philosophical Investigations. The evidence which serves as proof of this fact, is the language which we call mathematics. The concept of "infinite" allows us to apply that language (mathematics) to absolutely anything, boundlessly. The language itself clearly is not limited, and as Wittgenstein describes, boundaries are created for particular purposes.

It makes no sense to talk about something as "ineffable" because to label it as ineffable is already to say something about it. Therefore to talk about the ineffable is just a ridiculous form of hypocrisy, a self contradicting action of doing exactly what one says can't be done, merely by saying it.

There is however a paradox which arises if we apprehend language as a thing, and try to describe it with language. We thereby attempt to measure the boundless, and clearly this is a mistake, to attempt to measure the boundless, or use language to describe language. The way to avoid this paradox may be to recognize that language is not a thing, it is a relationship, and maintain a separation of categories between things and relationships, the former being inherently bounded, the latter being intrinsically boundless.

If we do this, we now have a very imposing problem. How can we understand relationships if we cannot talk about them? We talk about things, but we do not talk about relationships, because I have categorized a relationship as something other than a thing and I have categorized things as what we talk about. I haven't truly said that there is something (relationships) which cannot be talked about (they are ineffable), I have said that relationships are not things, and things are what we talk about. The question is, how do we apply language toward understanding relationships if it improper to say that we talk about relationships?

There are no boundaries intrinsic to language, it is inherently boundless. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wish you had written this instead, "There are no boundaries intrinsic to the possibilities of language, they are inherently boundless," Language itself is all about bounds and boundaries as limits that establish first the possibility of meaning, and then the particular meaning.

And what sense does it make to aver that language is boundless, but at the same time bounded in that it cannot even gesture towards something like the ineffable - apparently cannot even name it. "It makes no sense to talk about something as 'ineffable.'"

Lefty-loosey, righty-tighty. When you find you've screwed yourself tight into something, just remember to try turning the other way to loosen up.

Whether possibilities are boundless or bound is a question of its own, but one apart from the boundedness of language.

Language itself is all about bounds and boundaries as limits that establish first the possibility of meaning, and then the particular meaning. — tim wood

Obviously I disagree. Using language is a matter of establishing boundaries and limits for intended purposes, as is evident with definitions imposed for the purpose of logical proceedings. However, you are referring to "language itself", which means that you have proposed a separation between the act of using, for purpose and intention, and the thing being used, language. You have, therefore, implied a separation between the thing, language (words or symbols), and the associated meaning. And, it is evident that meaning is a feature of the usage, which is the establishing of boundaries, not the thing being used, the language itself.

Therefore your assumption that "language itself is all about bounds and boundaries as limits that establish first the possibility of meaning, and then the particular meaning" is very confused. The "possibility of meaning" is quite distinct from "the particular meaning". The possibility of meaning is provided for by "language itself" (symbols and words), and is boundless, as evident from the infinite possibilities of mathematical language, infinity. And, "the particular meaning" is established by the particular instances of use, the purpose or intention.

And what sense does it make to aver that language is boundless, but at the same time bounded in that it cannot even gesture towards something like the ineffable - apparently cannot even name it. "It makes no sense to talk about something as 'ineffable.'" — tim wood

This is not what I said. I said that it makes no sense to refer to something as ineffable, because this is hypocrisy, to insist that something can't be done, while actually doing it with the act of saying that it can't be done. See, language itself is not actually bounded, we create boundaries with our particular instances of use. And in this case we are creating a boundary which being violated by the very act which is supposed to be making the boundary (self-contradiction).

The paradox is not properly dealt with in this way though. It is only by assuming that "ineffable" as a word, or symbol, can only be used in a restricted way (has boundaries, or a set meaning), that allows me to say that if I use it in this particular way, it is hypocrisy (to go outside those boundaries). So there is a matter of uncertainty which is exposed, as to what is actually bounded, the use, or the thing being used.

Lefty-loosey, righty-tighty. When you find you've screwed yourself tight into something, just remember to try turning the other way to loosen up. — tim wood

Right, we now approach the opposite way. Since you have now designated that language is a thing, instead of my prior proposition, that language is a relationship, we see that language itself is what is bounded, and the use of language is unbounded. But it's all just a matter of how you define "language". Is it a thing, such as a symbol or word, or is it the use of words or symbols. Inverting these two will invert one's understanding of which is bounded and which is not bounded.

Your definition of language might be interesting; I'd like to see it. I'd provide mine, but I'm finding it not-so-easy to comprehensively define on short notice. You?

If we need to define language, we need to use language. Nothing can define its own self. Conceptually everything can establish separation, but the separation and the similarities must be experientially or intellectually be part of the self, if the definer is a thinking machine.

- Can we define god?
- can we define mathematics, philosophy, science?
- can we define language?
- can we define thought?

All these are derivatives that could only get off the ground as social groupthinks because they were created using language; and they elude defition only because their mother is language, which is -- basically -- nothing. Language is to the intellect as paper is to the value of paper money, or as condoms are to love, or as laughtracks in American sitcoms are to humour.

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here.

E.g., Are you referring to physical objects - chairs, planets? Are you going more granular down to atoms, electrons, sub-atomic particles? Photons? etc.

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here.

E.g., Are you referring to physical objects - chairs, planets? Are you going more granular down to atoms, electrons, sub-atomic particles? Photons? etc. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into.

Interesting that you should bring up atoms but at that scale too there's no single unifying attribute. In my humble opinion, if there's a word that has as its extension all that the universe contains, it's the word "thing". Everything is a thing. Try to define "thing" and all you get is a sentence that says a "thing" is anything that can possess an attribute and we're back to square one for the reason that all attributes come in pairs of opposites.

Experience it. — praxis

Could you really experience something absolute, or just your deficient version of it in existence?

My question is about how to abstract the One, without the deficiencies caused by our finitude. I came to the thinking that we could arrive at the conception of the One, through the division of concepts. - Ex: We would (?) describe (?) part (?) of the One by mathematics, another part by language, another by metaphysics, reason, emotion, etc ... -

High is relative to low, meaning is relative to meaningless, purpose is relative to purposelessness, — praxis

This way of thinking is in part because of our existence as Beings. My use of "higher" is further proof that we are unable to attribute characteristics and details to the One without harming its concept.

Any attempt to define the universe in terms of attributes is doomed to fail ergo, the One, the universe, is "beyond all attributes". — TheMadFool

Agreed.

Could you really experience something absolute, or just your deficient version of it in existence? — Gus Lamarch

It’s everything, right? so how can we ever not be expecting it. Maybe the only problem is that we don’t realize the absolute. The Buddha solves the problem by sitting still, Timothy dropped acid, the Dervish twirl, etc, etc. The value is in relieving existential anxiety and anything beyond that probably enters the realm of religion and serves an entirely different purpose.

My question is about how to abstract the One, without the deficiencies caused by our finitude. I came to the thinking that we could arrive at the conception of the One, through the division of concepts. - Ex: We would (?) describe (?) part (?) of the One by mathematics, another part by language, another by metaphysics, reason, emotion, etc ... — Gus Lamarch

In order to... what?

Your definition of language might be interesting; I'd like to see it. I'd provide mine, but I'm finding it not-so-easy to comprehensively define on short notice. You? — tim wood

I've discussed language considerably at this forum. Generally, there are two distinct approaches. The first would be to define language as communication, and this implies an underlying supposition that it is a type of relationship between individuals. The second is to define it as a use of symbols, and this allows a broader range of human activity to be included under that name. Either way is acceptable depending on one's purpose. But if we use the first approach, we see that the means by which people communicate is the use of symbols. Then one might employ a private language sort of argument to restrict "language" to a particular type of use of symbols, communication between individuals. And this sort of definition will impede our process by excluding all the other ways that symbols are used by an individual, as irrelevant to "language" as defined, thus hindering our understanding of language.

So, suppose we have a fundamental unity, an individual, which for the sake of being relevant to this thread is called the primary "One", the absolute. Then we want to relate language to this One. The one way of looking at language places language as external to the One, as how the One relates to others through communion. But this leaves the individual, as a unity, a one, incomprehensible. The other way of looking at language places language as internal to the One, as a fundamental feature of what makes the One one, a unity.

The two ways represent distinct formulations of the absolute. One way formulates the ideal as a collection all particulars, related to each other through communication, as a whole, One. But this leaves the particulars, the individuals participants within the whole, undefined as ineligible for the status of "one", because internal relations cannot be equated with external relations. The opposite way formulates the ideal, One as a fundamental indivisible element. The unity of this fundamental whole cannot be represented as a collection of parts in communion, or else we have an infinite regress of divisible parts. Therefore there are two distinct and incompatible formulations of the ideal One. The former says everything real is internal to the One, the latter says everything real is external to the One.

The best I can do is language as that in which and by which communication happens. Communication to language as message to media, cargo to cart. Or another way, if a message is received, then communication occurred, carried by some language. Outstretched arms and a smile, then, are communication, so too the forbidding aspect of a remote mountain peak, each in and by its own language.

Agree? Disagree? Provide your own?

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) ?

The best I can do is language as that in which and by which communication happens. Communication to language as message to media, cargo to cart. Or another way, if a message is received, then communication occurred, carried by some language. Outstretched arms and a smile, then, are communication, so too the forbidding aspect of a remote mountain peak, each in and by its own language.

Agree? Disagree? Provide your own? — tim wood

I don't really agree, because as I described, there are uses of symbols which are not properly communication. This would include as a memory aid, or as an aid in understanding, use in logic, etc.. And, I would prefer to define language as a type of thing rather than as a type of activity, because that is the way that the word is commonly used. This leaves me with defining language in relation to the symbols (spoken and written words) themselves, rather than in relation to what is being done with the symbols, communicating. Since more is being done with the symbols than just communicating, we cannot restrict our definition of language by relating it solely to communication, as you propose.

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH

Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass.

In order to... what? — praxis

To actually perceive and understand it perfectly.

It’s everything — praxis

His - Plotinus's - "One" "cannot be any existing thing", nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents".

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH

Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass. — TheMadFool

I'm OK working with however you choose to define your terms - but you gotta pick a usage/definition and stick to it. When you use the word objects? Are you including thoughts & photons in your usage/definition?

I'm OK working with however you choose to define your terms - but you gotta pick a usage/definition and stick to it. When you use the word objects? Are you including thoughts & photons in your usage/definition? — EricH

Yes. What's wrong with that?

"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God." — Gus Lamarch

Please cite where you read this in Plotinus.
The Enneads refer to all kinds of arguments, much like Aquinas did in his writing. I am not sure which argument is being referred to here.

I am not sure which argument is being referred to here. — Valentinus

(III.8.10) As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere (e.g. V.6.3), it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God.

which are not properly communication. — Metaphysician Undercover

Looks like we have to go here. Communication: any message; the contents of any message.

And, I would prefer to define — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not interested even a little bit in your preferences. This is a question of what something is, or is not, and not at all what you would prefer it to be.

I've now offered somewhat broad and inclusive definitions of both language and now communication. If you find some error, object and give grounds. If you can improve, improve. If they're hopeless, say so and offer your own.

[reply="TheMadFool;454262"

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH


Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass. — TheMadFool — EricH

Are you seriously suggesting that radio waves and thoughts are physical objects at the human scale?

I'm not interested even a little bit in your preferences. This is a question of what something is, or is not, and not at all what you would prefer it to be. — tim wood

This is completely wrong. You asked me for a definition. Clearly any word can be defined in a multiplicity of different ways. Obviously I'm going to provide you with my preferred way. Your idealist assumption concerning what is or is not the definition, is nonsense.

Communication: any message; the contents of any message. — tim wood

This definition is completely unacceptable to me. I consider communication to be the act of transmitting, not the contents of the transmission.

If they're hopeless, say so and offer your own. — tim wood

Yes I think your definition of communication is hopeless and we are going in the wrong direction, digressing instead of proceeding. I already offered you my preferred way of defining "language", but you rejected it and said that you are "not interested even a little bit in your preferences", so I think we have reached a hopeless situation.

I already offered you my preferred way of defining "language", — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, you have not. Try to find where you define it. It's not there. Also:

Communication: any message; the contents of any message.
— tim wood
This definition is completely unacceptable to me. I consider communication to be the act of transmitting, not the contents of the transmission — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you never received a communication? There is the act of communicating, and there is the thing communicated, and there is the media that carries the, carries the what? The message, the thing communicated. Again, acceptability to you or what you consider anything to be is out-of-court as a standard. You shall have to come out of your warren if you want to play.