Philosophical Treatise on Eternal Action
Introduction
These statements are value based, as such there is the possibility that they could be argued against, denied outright, or could simply be forgotten or ‘not considered.’ For example, the statement that ‘the finite exists’ (irrespective of the language barriers) would be irrelevant to a rock, to an animal or to an early human, not in the sense that the argument is right or wrong but in that the value of the idea would be meaningless, nonsensical or pointless to the thoughts, needs and understandings of the subjects, much in the way that the ‘truths’ of those subjects or even the ‘truths’ of our future selves would be meaningless to us (This thought can even be extended to the truths between us now as individuals, or the beliefs we held onto throughout the many stages of our lives.).
The difficulty with truth is that every statement must be taken on faith and the value of every statement is only realised through its use. Past causes and effects are not proof that the future will follow the same logic, or that the past is how we remember it. As such we can not make true or false statements of the world around us, we can only utilise methods and where those methods fail to provide us with sufficient results we can change them accordingly.
The following is one such method:
Prologue
A1The Finite Exists;
‘Existence’ is finite.
Anything defined, labelled, conceived, concocted, expressed, imagined or constructed is finite. In essence, anything we attribute qualities or values to, those qualities and values, define its limitations.
As all finite values are subject to change, the statement is only expected to be of value so long as there exists a sentient mind that accepts the notion. Until then this truth is accepted on the notion that any denial of it holds as much authority as the statement itself.
A2All Structures are Finite;
Every structure or construct, whether mental or physical, is finite.
This is the case because where a subject’s qualities and values are defined, they cannot be otherwise. A ‘red ball’ is red, not blue.
A3All Limitations are Structures and all Structures are Limitations;
A4Action is Defined as the Change in Value through Space-Time;
Action in our sense of the word is akin to movement. This involves a change of some kind between individual parts, within the qualitative structure of space-time.
Change is only apparent to those that perceive the initial values and identities to begin with and the values and identities that they become.
If change is not perceived there is no change.
A5The Measure of Action is Qualitative and therefore Finite;
Action itself is a concept. It does not exist in the separate sense of the word, only in regards to the changes in qualities and values between interdependent parts.
A6For the Finite to have come about Selectively as Opposed to the Product of Infinite Potentiality, there would have to be a Structure in place to Discriminate as to what could Exist and what could Not Exist;
A7If the Limitation is Imposed by a Third Party then that particular Party must be Finite as to Discriminate is a Qualitative Action and Contradictory to the Unqualitative Nature of the Infinite;
If this structure were to be infinite in duration then there would be a point within that structure that would contain the potential to allow exceptions. Given an infinite duration, all exceptions would be possible. Thus there would be no distinctions to Infinite potential anyway, however the idea of an original structure might be ruled out by Occam’s razor.
A8Thus a Spectrum of Infinite Potentiality must Exist;
Nothing qualitative can be said of the Infinite. Instead we can only considered it in relation to the finite. This relationship is ‘Infinite Potentiality.’ Infinite Potentiality can be considered as the statistical probability that a finite thing could ‘exist.’
Part 1
1The Infinite IS;
There is no way to avoid mentioning the infinite in a non-value-based way without contradiction; however by accepting the existence of the finite we automatically accept the existence of the infinite by way of necessity.
2By Way of the Infinite, Infinite Potential IS;
3By Way of Infinite Potential, the Finite IS;
4This Dynamic Relationship is the Essence of Eternal Action.
Here ‘Eternal Action’ is considered as the infinite causal of the finite. The finite will infinitely be, yet to the finite there is division, change, value and ultimately an ‘end’ to its existence.
The finite cannot be considered an ‘illusion’ as this creates the idea of a ‘real’ state of things, but it’s the thought itself that brings about the limitations and values. Any idea of a ‘real’ state of things is just as ‘illusory’ as the ‘illusion’ itself.
Part 2
5With the Finite Arises Value and Awareness;
By Nature, the Finite is Qualitative and Limited.
Because the Finite is Qualitative, There must be that which Defines its Qualities and limitations; This is the Antithesis (a Dual Aspect of the Finite).
6By Nature, the Finite is Division;
7Awareness is the Field of Value;
Without Awareness, Value cannot be Established; Without Value, There is No Distinction between Forms and thus Nothing to be Aware of.
8The Distinctions in Value are Actualised by way of the Limitations of the Finite;
The Finite is the Whole, Yet Concerned with the Parts. Realisation of the Whole would Reintegrate the Constituent Parts and the Finite would be the Infinite.
Through Value and Awareness, the World of Form is Actualised and Eternal Action is Perceived as Qualitative Action or Change.
9The Distinctions in Value Constitutes the World of Form.
Further Disintegration Creates Structural Integrity.
10The World of Form IS the World of Identities.
Comments
Here ‘Eternal Action’ is considered as the infinite causal of the finite. The finite will infinitely be, yet to the finite there is division, change, value and ultimately an ‘end’ to its existence.
10The World of Form IS the World of Identities.
nice nourishment
mikhail you’ve highlighted some fundamental philosophical themeshere, I would however, have liked to see in your writing, where the material was obtained from. In these types of writings, it’s crucial to quote and cite, so the reader may refer to the original texts and and draw their own comclusions if they wish to – this is openeing the philosophical debate to larger arena, and also, incidentally, ensures no plagiarism.
I wonder could you please include a little bibliography or quote your material sources…
thanks for sharing such interesting philosophical issues…
Just wanted to say that regarding what is finite, I felt that actions can be…but perhaps we can get back to that….(after I think it through a bit more)…
regards
suzanne
Apologies all reading the above comment for all my typing errors oops..should read back first…add comment second….!!
#
Hi suzanne, thanks for commenting. im sure that someone has already thought these things before but ive tried to maintain a strictly independent line of thinking here. i was told spinoza is suppose to be close to this work, but after reading his texts on the infinite i think my own ideas are trying to get at something new. i think its more influenced from buddhism but in regards to the things ive read i hadnt quite found what i felt was missing.
you are absolutley right. Action is finite! im so glad you caught that, i wanted to extend this even further however and show that action itself is irrelevant (non existent) without the perception of time and the changing of interdependent values.
however as aquinas mentioned, what about the original mover? and so i got thinking about what could keep the finite “moving”? and not be finite itself? and i think by way of the product of being infinite (although we cant conceive of the infinite itself) we can think of the potential for finite to be. i think this is probably why i need to structure my ideas as im not sure if im explaining this right. :)
i hope to talk further on the subject at some point as im excited about the implications
thanks for reading
Mikhayl
Add your comment as a reply to Mikhayl Von Riebon
Show text formatting help:
- your text can be bold → your text can be bold
- your text can be italic → your text can be italic
- text can be linked → text can be linked
(Please play nice)– Mikhayl Von Riebon
….Another thought..(yes slowly :), In your point A2 – where you state that a red ball is a red ball – my response is that it the red ball is seen and therefore also perceived to be what it is via an individual internal, mental or other process(es) at play. So I would have to say that I disagree with this statement, simply (or not) because two people can be looking at the same thing at the same time and see something different; and, furthermore, how do you claim that what is being viewed by ‘A’ is correct and what is being viewed by ‘B’ is not?
You may argue here about logistical facts and hard reality – but then again, I would ask you this question: – Who defines what is reality? or, put simpler, How is reality defined? And who authenticates it? Is it safe to say that ‘A’ thinks such and such so therefore yes it is and if therefore, ‘B’ thinks or believes it to be different, then is ‘B’ wrong?
….And if your answer is that yes ‘A’ can prove that the ball is red, what does that say about reality and what we think it is? i.e. is reality really as simple as that?
Suzanne
I agree. i see now that i never actually stated that all of this line of thought is actually suppose to be understood from a subjective experience. thankyou, i guess i took that for granted.
when it comes to distinctions in perception between subject a and b, i simply dont consider them. from my point of view there is no logical way of proving or denying the existence of an objective reality. as such ive come to consider the universe itself as being the ‘sum of subjective knowledge.’
how does this philosophical exercise appear to you from a subjective position?
Thankyou
Mikhayl
– Mikhayl Von Riebon
Mikhail – I’ve deliberately given you some provoking questions…..I’m interested (based on your initial assumptions), how your define reality – since clearly you have a position given your positions on subjectivity and objectivity…
I’ll be interested to read your thoughts on this.
Suzanne
Im very flattered :)
for me ‘reality’ is a mental construct, created by our ideas, definitions, values, labels and meanings. i call a chair ‘a chair’ and have a certain understanding of its function but only because of my relation to it. for example i have the capacity to sit down :). if i couldnt, it might not have the same meaning, value or use. then you get into types of chairs, colours, textures and softness. my disposition to these features will be based on past feelings and experiences. if i dont have any real feelings about it, ill simply buy one, probably on an unconscious level of one i saw advertised earlier. these present actions will also go to shape how i perceive chairs in the future.
on the one hand i see chairs as entities in their own right (individuals), on the other i see them as being interdependent on me (or people with the capacity to sit in general) to give them functionality, as well as other environmental objects or even their own constituent parts (non separate entities) and all these entities likewise dependent on chairs for their identities. all of these things coming together as one big matrix of relationships that help define one another.
‘reality’ for me is one big relationship. how i relate to the world defines me as a person. and so i cant say the world is false or else i say i am false. i cant say anything about it without proportionally defining myself.
id like to say i see reality as being a whole. but i think we have an overwhelming biological need for identity, which gets in the way, thus dividing the world. so for now its an idea.
i would say my views are close to buddhism, but i question the idea of enlightenment. not in its reality, but in the sense that most people seem to think of it, as a means of escape. for example, if a being were to no longer become fixated on the division of the world and see reality as empty of separate entities (including the self), at what point does division settle in again? i mean i understand that our true nature is undivided, but we (as divided selves) are fixated on division, so if something changes then can it change back? how was it to begin with? and if nothing changes does that mean, what we are trying to achieve through enlightenment, already is? if so why try?
so then i wonder if maybe enlightenment IS and what we need to do is simply learn to stand out of the way of it, so to speak. that although it probably doesnt matter, to the infinite, if we do achieve something greater then ourselves or not, but through our suffering/ignorance/divided selves, we can value it? (ill have to think more on that)
at least thats how i justify my reason for thinking more then the average bear. :) on the one hand i think whatever i think about reality is pointless and contradictory (cause any thought or action that is reacting to the world of division only further causes division and thus further leads me away from what i want to see) but on the other hand i cant help to think as its a product of my biology, and i cant help but get fixated on my thoughts, feelings and experiences.
i want to strive for both, where thoughts, actions and experiences do their thing but there is no attachment or reaction to them. probably because i cant think of anything better to do.
as best as i can write it id say that’s my view on reality for now; the things that im fixated on. it’ll change with time as all things, :D
oh and to answer the question who defines reality or at least authenticates it? it would be contradictory to say ‘the self’ as the self is equally defined by these things. im sure if i really truly new this answer i wouldnt have to ask anymore questions. from what ive seen, systems theory begs this question too. i mean how exactly does the infinite cause the finite? and this is what has lead me to think that the finite is an ‘eternal’ product of the infinite (eternal action) which is the same as “thoughts are a product of the original mind” and in turn define the self and the self defines the thoughts.
that was fun,
thanks
Mikhayl
– Mikhayl Von Riebon
many years ago i was a student of philosophy – now i am a student of life….lol!
and whilst i’ve enjoyed this dialogue…i must admit i am nowhere as in touch with any of the reading materials as i was many years ago…but i still get interested in these views…although at times it all becomes circular and irrelevent…no offence!
glad if i sparked off your thinking….
suzanne