Oneself in relation to philosophy & relativity

[Pam Seeback]

While abstract reasoning - the doing of philosophy - is usually necessary to break the spell of conventional thinking so one may know who or what one is in the ultimate sense, once one receives wisdom of the infinite, wisdom of oneself, abstract reasoning must be transcended. Why? Because in order to conceptualize (say) or actualize (do) oneself, one must be as one is, that is, absolute.

Where does doubt enter into the absolute conceptualizing and actualizing of oneself? As another aspect of being absolute, meaning that when doubt is present, it is known that it is absolutely not time to conceptualize or actualize oneself, that one must wait until the time is known to be right.

In relation to the concept of relativity, the absolute one of Word in speech and deed causes form relativity meaning that it is the forming that is absolute, not the formation.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

While abstract reasoning - the doing of philosophy - is usually necessary (...) once one receives wisdom of the infinite, wisdom of oneself, abstract reasoning must be transcended.

It's actually the doing of philosophy which would engage in full transcendence of our earlier fantasies, illusions, abstract and concepts, which all might have some function at some point but need to be challenged for all the attachments riding on them.

Abstract reasoning has little to do with philosophy. Mathematics is no philosophy. Plotting a complex, ritualistic perfect murder ain't either.

Where does doubt enter into the absolute conceptualizing and actualizing of oneself? As another aspect of being absolute, meaning that when doubt is present, it is known that it is absolutely not time to conceptualize or actualize oneself, that one must wait until the time is known to be right.

Doubt is the facilitator of change, it's the very fuel to renew concepts and work through the formation of self. It's not meant as traffic light. Maybe depression is more like that. Like for some people in a depressed state, it's not the time to perform tasks which require much energy and focus. This is also the main problem depressed people might describe: no will, no light left to make all the changes needed to facilitate some change of mind.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:18 am
While abstract reasoning - the doing of philosophy - is usually necessary (...) once one receives wisdom of the infinite, wisdom of oneself, abstract reasoning must be transcended.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It's actually the doing of philosophy which would engage in full transcendence of our earlier fantasies, illusions, abstract and concepts, which all might have some function at some point but need to be challenged for all the attachments riding on them.

The doing/reasoning of philosophy causes full transcendence of belief in separation/alienation (attachment), but philosophy cannot take us into the next stage of our wisdom journey, that of being the conscious or realized subject of transcendence. For example, the philosophy of existentialism is attached to Nietzsche and if one relates to this philosophy, they transcend their belief in separation/alienation by studying and analyzing the thoughts of Nietzsche until the sense of separation/alienation is gone (one could say that they have absorbed the nondual meaning of the abstract concept existence).

Relating this to my personal experience with studying Nietzsche (amongst other existentialists), one of my favourite quotes of his is from The Gay Science: “If we affirm one single moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.” Note that the entire quote rings with the harmony of nondual realization, and when taken to the 'next' (or highest or deepest) level, the level of absolute subject, one knows/does themselves as the affirmer, the justifier and the redeemer of all of existence. Which, of course, unless one consciously desires to provoke a spiritual awakening, one does not announce to anyone except those who understand its spiritual significance.

In a nutshell, one is attracted to a certain (healing) philosophy so as to transcend their ego of separate selves, and of the analysis of this (healing) philosophy, the ego of separate selves is transcended until all there 'is left' is the knowing and doing of oneself/the absolute subject.

Abstract reasoning has little to do with philosophy. Mathematics is no philosophy. Plotting a complex, ritualistic perfect murder ain't either.

From wikipedia: "Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Abstract reasoning has little to do with philosophy. Mathematics is no philosophy. Plotting a complex, ritualistic perfect murder ain't either.

From wikipedia: "Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics."

Your definition from Wikipedia does not apply in any discussion about the nature of the object and how we experience it as concrete reality.

Both abstract and concrete objects refer, instantiate realities but it's more the scale in terms of time and complexity which differs. And because abstracts try to refer to more complex realities, there's way more that can go wrong, misunderstood, mistranslated or forgotten about the sign.

[Pam Seeback]

Abstract reasoning has little to do with philosophy. Mathematics is no philosophy. Plotting a complex, ritualistic perfect murder ain't either.

From wikipedia: "Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics."

Your definition from Wikipedia does not apply in any discussion about the nature of the object and how we experience it as concrete reality.

Both abstract and concrete objects refer, instantiate realities but it's more the scale in terms of time and complexity which differs. And because abstracts try to refer to more complex realities, there's way more that can go wrong, misunderstood, mistranslated or forgotten about the sign.

I concede to your more complete definition of abstract and concrete. Which makes a good case for the continued evolution of refinement of object referral, especially in the realm of the abstract. What I have found is that the more one contemplates, thereby refines, abstract realities in relation to concrete realities and vice versa, the more the two become synthesized, with the added bonus of a fullness or wholeness sense of self being formed in the process.

[waechter418]

Self is the vessel of All and thus hidden in it.