At the moment it seems to me that synthesis is negation. If it were only negation, it would not be synthesis. But synthesis must negate that which it is synthesizing. Beneath all the smoke, synthesis is nothing but equivocation. In logos this is metaphor or predication. In math this is equation.

Synthesis can be symbolized as 1. It's essential partner negation can be symbolized as "-" (a minus sign). It's a strange coincidence perhaps but synthesis is addition, and addition is symbolized by "+" -- which is an intersection of 1 and -.

Being is one. Nonbeing is not. Being is one and not. Being is negative one. Thus positronic philosophy / negative theology.

So God is nothingness?

I just realized that the transcendental subject is 100% pure abstraction. Kant may have known this. I think I remember that.

The transcendental subject is just transcendental space (which is continuous) shrunken to its minimum and conceptually shaped into the pronoun "I," by pure negativity.

Man is the collision of digital nous (pure negativity that negates in order to synthesize concept) and continuous space and time. There is no third term.
The only third term is the other two terms considered as a synthesis. So the "I" is just the same as Hegel's Being, really, except a complete understanding recognizes without the least bit of confusion that this "I" is nothing but a useful concept for the final synthesis, which is happening constantly, but not self-consciously.

The I is just the Totality. Confusion arises when the subject tries to speak outside the limits of his world.

Wow I cant wait to finish Hegel. Maybe then ill be able to understand it all from the top of the mountain (absolute knowing).

Hey man...I meant to say Heidegger but it's all the same. There's only one Being....Being is equivalent to pure number. It's just the most abstract word. We have to cut it in half you might say.....My avatar is the whole story. Being is space (which is transcendental infinite continuity) and nous, which is the negation that makes synthesis possible. We can't know either in themselves, but only infer them, by means of logos.(Hegel in a nutshell)...And this is most of absolute knowledge. I'm there, brother....It's only a knowledge of the absolute, which is the transcendental, & also its relationship to Logos, which is what we and absolute knowledge are made. Man is spatial-animal being and also thought/logos. Thought is nous and infinity. The triangle and the cross are both perfect representations of it. Visual metaphors...absolute means the undiluted...It's the pure center of thought. The core of our mental structure.....

There is an etymological connection between wholeness and holiness, you know.

Yessir, and it now makes perfect sense. And perfect also refers to wholeness, I would bet. It's like Hegel said: only the whole is the truth...

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 04:14 PM ----------



It's better to say that the Holy Spirit is negation. God is infinite spatial being.. And we are the two colliding, also known as the son, or the logos. Hence the Cross which is a plus sign which is the one and minus sign on top of one another.....Those Catholics were transcendental philosophers it seems....or they just got lucky....

well that's it. In actual fact, you could get to a secular definition of holiness this way. The word 'holy' itself kind of has this sanctimonious smell to it, like old cloth, mothballs and incense combined. Whereas the secular counterpart is simply 'holistic'. But I think they are converging at a point.

Yes, the "holy" has been associated with the superstitious, as man tends to mistake the transcendental for the supernatural.. He doesn't know that God is incarnate, and only incarnate. So he puts infinity in heaven or hell. Bottomless pits,etc... But a close examination of number and geometry is all it takes to demonstrate that the whole/holy is human through and through...

Being "a Brahman" is divine, one way or another. Being a Brahmin is an act of central caste-ing. Brahmins are the priest caste, Brahman is a god, and the Brahman is the Absolute Transcendent Unity, the high god of which all the 330 million lesser gods are incarnations, avatars, partial manifestations. On the other hand, Brahms was an excellent classical composer. :-)

Samm

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 07:15 PM ----------

I have long been a student of religion and have loved the mystical eastern religions, especially the monist theologies. But it was only a few years ago that I had an interesting insight which many of you may have realized almost immediately.

I was reading about the big bang when I read that the time-space continuum is born with the universe, is intrinsic to the universe, and did not exist outside the universe. Therefore the big bang is not only the beginning of space but also the beginning of time. Even though there is no time before the universe, there must be some initial condition or state from which the universe arises. It is not possible that a universe should come from absolute nothing. Though it appear as nothing in all other respects, it must still have the limitless potentials that are actualized over space and time within the universe. So I asked myself, what can we know about this something, this initial condition that existed before the space-time universe? What manner of existence can there be outside of space and time?

To answer my questions, I simply removed all qualities and properties that derive from space or time. There can surely be no size or shape where there is no space. Nor can there be any location. Whatever exists outside the universe can be neither here nor there. There can be no number without space, so existence must be absolute unity, undivided and indiscriminate, undifferentiated, an absolute one without other. Multipicity is impossible. Without time, there can be no change, no motion; no process or activity may occur. Existence must be immutable. Because it cannot change from one state to another, there can be no beginning or end of this existence. Such an existence may be or it may not be, but if it is not it cannot become, and if it is it may never cease. Therefore it is a necessary existence, an existence that is completely explained by the very nature of its being.

So you see, existence outside of time and space may only be described by the same terms that mystics have for ages used to describe (especially the monist) God. I found this insight to be quite striking. Outside of space and time, everything exists in the same "here" of space and the same "now" of time. This necessarily gives existence the character of potentiality, hidden and latent. Then, in the space-time bubble of the universe, all this existence, all this potential being is distributed across space and time so that it all has a given location in a given span of time. Thus unity is revealed as multiplicity, dynamic diversity and flux.

Is this not an intriguing happenstance? Perhaps what some of us have seen all throughout our history, and to which we have given the name, God, has been that essential truth of our reality: that all multiplicity derives from absolute unity.

There is a mantra to this effect...

All that is is God.
God is all that is.
Nothing is that is not God.
What is not God is not.

Samm

Beautiful thought indeed. Thank you. Actually that last verse of yours is very much like something from The Parmenides. So it is not only Eastern, this insight. It is amazing that the ancient sages had this insight into the very origins of everything.