The Groundwork for Idealism Part X – The Philosophical Idealist

Introduction

In part IV of this series I promised that, for the purposes of clarification, over the course of the next few posts, my blog would cover a range issues, including, but not limited to:

the advantages associated with using the PSR as a theoretical foundation for idealism,
the question of what precisely it means to say that “Matter is the visibility of Mind,” (and the implications associated with that view)
the exact nature of “Pure Mind,” within the context of this system (beyond merely its definition as a function of the negation of subjective self-objectification),
the question of what precisely it means to say that “Mind is reality experienced in Time alone.”

In the last post, I offered an explanation of the true meaning of Pure Mind by examining the property of transcendence and interrogating the three implications which that property seemed to yield: 1. the substantial unity between Freedom and Necessity, 2. the substantial unity between Void and Reality, and 3. the substantial unity between duality and non-duality.

In this post I want to elaborate further on that last point (i.e., the substantial unity between duality and non-duality). I intend to do this by introducing my “Infinity Analogy.”

The intention of this so-called “infinity Analogy,” is to synthesize the main points of the Spiral analogy that I used in the previous post, while also providing more structure to it.

Infinity Analogy

The non-dual is to the dual what the Absolute infinity is to the non-Absolute infinity.

The Absolute infinity contains within itself all conceivable and inconceivable numbers, both finite and transfinite. Between the Absolute infinity and the non-Absolute infinity exists an infinite gulf of inaccessibility and remoteness. And yet, paradoxically, the Absolute infinity is no different from the non-Absolute infinity, because the Absolute infinity is made-up of the very numbers which exist in the non-absolute infinity.

The numbers in this number lines stretch into infinity. The number line represents non-absolute infinity. Despite not being Absolute infinity, this number line nevertheless strives toward/chases Absolute infinity. The non-absolute infinity, therefore, is the very backbone of the Absolute. Without the non-absolute, there is no Absolute. This is because they are one and the same.

The Absolute infinity transcends the non-absolute infinity, but is in fact not ontologically different from it, because it is “made up” of it. The Absolute infinity is not substantially different from the non-absolute infinity.

In a way, the “non-absolute infinity,” does not really exist at all–all that really exists is the Absolute infinity. The non-absolute infinity is just an arbitrary slice of the Absolute infinity.

The non-absolute infinity thinks itself separate from the Absolute infinity because of the seemingly infinite, unsurpassable gulf between itself and the Absolute infinity. This belief is known as “duality,” (i.e., the thinking that the Absolute and the non-Absolute are two separate entities). But in fact, the belief in “duality” is false, because the Absolute infinity and the non-Absolute infinity are, in fact, not two separate entities. All that truly exists is the Absolute infinity; hence, non-duality is true. T

Another way to phrase the situation is as such: “duality,” between Absolute infinity and non-Absolute infinity is the very backbone of the “non-duality,” of the Absolute infinity. That is to say, the Absolute infinity and the non-absolute infinity might be distinct nominally (in name only), but ontologically (in terms of actual being/existence) they have no difference, (i.e., they are not separate). The Absolute infinity is different from the non-Absolute infinity only in terms of distinction (which I exclusively use to refer to nominalism) but it is not different in terms of separation (which I exclusively use to refer to ontology).

Nominalism is language, and all language is dualistic; hence, all nominalism already presupposes duality. Therefore, duality is a function of language and logic and as such is the precondition of thinking. That is why it is tautological to assume that the “non-absolute infinity,” is different from the “Absolute infinity,” because the very names we give for those things already linguistically presuppose a difference. But language is not necessarily isomorphic to ontology.

We can know that even though the “absolute infinity,” and the “non-absolute infinity,” are named different things, they are not necessarily separate things. This duality is but a superimposition upon a fundamentally “non-dual,” entity, which in-itself is the real Absolute infinity.

Of course, even the designation “non-dual” is a nominalism meant to clarify the nature of the thing-in-itself (a thing which exists, in-and-of-itself, beyond the duality of Absolute and non-Absolute). Nevertheless, inevitably (as with all language), even the label “non-dual,” cannot help but create the implicit duality of “dual vs non-dual.”

This thing-in-itself, is both Absolute and non-Absolute, and is also beyond Absolute and non-Absolute. This thing-in-itself is the non-dual recipient of the superimposition of all duality.

The thing-in-itself, which is non-dual, can nevertheless not be separated from duality.

This leads us to one “radical” conclusion: the dualistic point of view of the “non-absolute infinity,” is the very backbone of the non-dual thing-in-itself. Therefore, true non-duality = duality. Therefore, the true Absolute infinity = non-absolute finitude.

This is the message which I was trying to communicate in the last part. The Absolute transcends duality, but is expressed from it. Duality is the simultaneously adequate-and-inadequate expression of the Non-Dual.

Infinity Analogy Continued

When you look at this gif, don’t think of the “Absolute,” as the final end-point, think of it as the very process of their being no end-point.

The Absolute infinity cannot be reached, it is inaccessible. No non-absolute infinity can reach it from “below.”

This is the infinite gulf between the Absolute and the non-absolute.

Yet, paradoxically, the Absolute is made-up of precisely this process of inaccessibility. That is to say, we can only cognize of the Absolute as a function of inaccessibility. Absolute infinity can only be “grasped,” precisely when we cease to attempt to grasp it–that is, when we simply allow it to be what it is.

Glimpses of Insight

The Absolute cannot be comprehended by a conventional mode of consciousness (i.e., through self-reflective awareness and the linguistic modes of rational discursive knowledge which comes along with it).

Trying to define the Absolute is like trying to reach the end of infinity/trying to access the inaccessible. Trying to define the Absolute is like trying to reach Absolute Infinity. Put simply, trying to define the Absolute is a contradiction-in-terms. It is only when we “come to terms” with that very contradiction-in-terms at which it becomes momentarily possible for us to genuinely have an intellectual breakdown, and thereby gain a slight non-dual glimpse.

The non-dual glimpse is the negative space between rational thoughts, the “in-between room” between our attempts at grasping the ungraspable. It is then, when we have struggled in vain to grasp what always remains beyond the reach of grasping, that suddenly, ironically, we are grasped by glimpses of understanding. We do not grasp the Absolute, the Absolute grasps you.

Put simply, let the Absolute stand for itself. Non-duality is best understood not via language, but via direct experience.

Explanation

To understand my point, consider the following:

The Absolute is beyond even saying “the Absolute is beyond”; furthermore, the Absolute is beyond even saying “the Absolute is beyond even saying ‘the Absolute is beyond’; further-furthermore, the Absolute is beyond even saying “the Absolute is beyond even saying “the Absolute is beyond even saying ‘the Absolute is beyond.'”” And so on ad infinitum…

The infinite regress of the sentence above, is like the infinite regress of the gifs above. The infinite regress of the gif will never “reach” Absolute infinity, just like the infinite regress of the sentence above will never “reach” understanding of the Absolute.

Rather, it is the failure of this process to “reach” the Absolute which precisely constitutes the Absolute (i.e., the Absolute is cognized as a function of inaccessibility). Only when we internalize the failure of grasping, do we internalize the real meaning of the Absolute. The real meaning of the Absolute, in turn, is equivalent to the process of non-grasping.

Not grasping is precisely what “grasps” the Absolute.

Application of Infinity Analogy

Taoism

The world is made of dualities (Yin and Yang), which are co-dependent, and therefore have no intrinsic existence (i.e., they have no existence except for the one they borrow from their dual counterpart). The Absolute (the Tao), in turn, is fundamentally not different from the duality of Yin-Yang.

I find that Taoism helps to clarify the complicated philosophy of Madhyamika Buddhism, so I will re-explain my interpretation of it prior to re-explaining my interpretation of Madhyamika Buddhism.

The Yin and Yang represent a perpetual infinite regress which finds no end-point or resolution no different from Master Analogy’s explanation of non-absolute infinity. Yet, paradoxically, it is precisely this perpetual infinite regress which finds no end-point or resolution which makes-up the very process by which the Absolute is constituted.

The Absolute (Tao) is inaccessible and unreachable from below (Yin and Yang), no different than the how the Absolute infinity is inaccessible and unreachable from non-absolute infinity. Yet, the the Absolute is expressed precisely in the process of this infinite regress, in the process of this failure to access the Absolute, in the process of duality. Yin and Yang are not the Tao, and yet they are the expression by which the Tao is knowable.

(Zen) Buddhism

In Buddhism there is the doctrine of “co-dependent origination,” which states that nothing arises independently of anything else, and that everything is mutually dependent, and mutually arising.

Madhyamika Buddhism further expands on this doctrine by espousing the additional doctrine of “Shunyata,” which translates to “emptiness.” This doctrine takes the doctrine of “co-dependent origination,” to its logical conclusion by articulating that, because nothing arises independently of anything else, nothing in existence has intrinsic reality, in-and-of-itself. In other words, the doctrine of “Shunyata,” teaches that because nothing arises independently of anything else, everything has only as much existence as everything else, (i.e., everything only exists on the existence which is borrowed from every other thing which has also borrowed its existence from everything else, and so on ad infinitum). Ultimately, the conclusion of “Shunyata,” is that all of existence lacks intrinsic existence, because all of it is made up of things which lack intrinsic existence.

We see this doctrine play out very clearly in my conception of the Absolute, which I have illustrated in my analogy of the Spiral.

Firstly, the Spiral is made-up of light and dark swirls (which respectively represent Reality and Void, Immanence and Transcendence, Necessity and Freedom, Mind-Matter-Monad and Pure Mind). This duality between light and dark swirls is an instance of co-dependent origination and therefore an instance of Shunyata. Why? Because the the light swirls cannot exist without the dark swirls and the dark swirls cannot exist without the light swirls. The dual opposites presuppose one another. Therefore, they are empty. Despite this dualistic emptiness of course, they constitute the non-dual phenomenon we call “the Spiral.” This gets us to the second point.

Despite the fact that the Spiral is a non-dual entity in-itself, it is nevertheless dependent on the duality of light and dark swirls to exist. Hence, the Spiral, non-duality itself, co-dependently originates from duality.

What does this mean? Firstly, it means even non-duality is empty (i.e., even non-duality is co-dependent with duality). Moreover, it means even non-duality is not substantially different from duality. That is, the “non-dual Absolute” is no different than the “dualistic non-Absolute.”

This is the essence of “Enlightenment”: non-dual Nirvana and is no different than dualistic Samsara. Nirvana is no less empty than Samsara. The Absolute and the non-Absolute are one and the same.

“Nothing of Samsara is different from Nirvana, **nothing of Nirvana is different from Samsara**. That which is the limit of Nirvana is also the limit of Samsara, there is not the slightest difference between the two.” — Nagarjuna (Indian Buddhist philosopher)

Conclusion

In this post I have honestly tried my best to distil my philosophical views on the true nature of the Absolute, as well as the lines of connection between my ontological system and the philosophical-religious traditions of Buddhism and Taoism.

I genuinely see no significant difference between my “Infinity Analogy,” or my “Spiral Analogy” and “Taoism,” or “(Zen) Buddhism.” As far as I’m concerned, the one thing that unifies my philosophy with the wisdom of Eastern religion is the spiritual quest for “enlightenment.”

For me, “enlightenment,” is a paradigm shift in the way that a person epistemologically orients himself toward the world. “Enlightenment,” requires stepping away from a position of duality, wherein binaries like Samsara vs Nirvana, Maya vs Brahman, non-Absolute vs Absolute, “Mind-Matter-Monad,” vs “Pure Mind,” exist, and stepping into a position of non-duality where even binaries like these fade away. In “enlightenment,” even the duality between “non-enlightenment,” and “enlightenment,” fades away, as do the dualities of “duality,” and “non-duality.” “Enlightenment,” requires internalizing the oneness of opposites. As you can probably see, this requires an intuitive, epiphanic realization which cannot be captured in words.

With all of that said, the series on the “Groundwork for Idealism,” is not yet completed. I still need to cover topic 4.

This is something which I will leave for the next post.