No. IV. Material Inferences.
1. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore thought exists, therefore existence exists.
2. Existence, by existing, must have always existed. If existence did not once exist it could never have come to exist, for nothing comes of nothing.
3. Existence, for having always existed, must always exist, as eternity backwards is eternity forwards – or it is not eternity.
4. Eternal existence by infinitely existing in time must infinitely exist in space, as time is of space.
5. Hence the theory of a finite existence is false because impossible. It implies that existence, where it ends, is surrounded by non-existence. Yet this non-existence, meaning no existence, would by definition disprove the finite existence. It is, furthermore, an ill paradox to credit non-existence with existence.
6. Therefore existence is eternal and infinite, because unending and indestructible.
7. Eternity and infinity self-evidently comprise all things.
8. All things comprise all power and all knowledge; therefore the eternal and infinite existence is omnipotent and omniscient.
9. Eternal and infinite existence further comprises all things living.
10. Where life is once recognised in part of existence then it is deduced in its entirety; for life contradicts death as death contradicts life, therefore, if we are to consider ourselves as living parts of all existence, then we must perforce consider all existence itself as the living total. How else but from the sum could the parts derive their qualities? Hence, all existence is to some extent alive.
11. That which is existent, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, and alive, is called God.
NOTE: It may further be remarked that it is scientifically acknowledged in every observed aspect of existence that emergence occurs due to synergy, therefore: Pantheism or Panentheism; for neither word properly understood means anything different to the other; transcendence in immanence. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.
Objections Answered.
1. A common objection to cogito ergo sum, or, as it may be the more properly expressed in English, I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I exist, is that it is a mere wheel of logic which has the same assumption in its premise as in its conclusion. It is sometimes maintained that the ‘I’ in the proposition assumes itself anyway, and that it is no more a proof of existence than the statement, I exist.
It was precisely due to such objections that the statement was composed. Naturally experience is sufficient to prove existence, as the existence of language is sufficient. The fact that non-existence is unimaginable is sufficient. It is sufficient, that is, to those capable of conceiving sufficiency. But to the man who persists in asking, like the fool who throws a stone a hundred wise men cannot recover, whether existence can be proved, as though his question does not, there is Descartes’ formula, which asks whether doubt may be doubted without assuming certainty.
2. There can be no objection to this statement without assuming transcendence.
3. To assert otherwise, that eternity may exist in only one direction, must be a contradiction.
4. If time were not of space its effects would not be observed. Eternity and infinity are two descriptions of limitlessness, thus limitlessness of any kind is limitlessness of every kind.[1]
5. No degree of intelligence could possibly imagine or describe a last frontier of existence. Even a pictured infinity of white and silent space, a relative nothingness, must be conceived through assumptions of time and place. As the earth appears flat to our small perspectives, and yet must be spherical, so existence appears limited to mankind, who see but a most minute part of its extent, yet must be infinite.
6. That is the natural conclusion of admissions 1 to 5. Who denies admission 6 must deny one of the preceding admissions.
8. In this eighth admission there is the assumption of conglomeration, or accumulation of parts into whole. I have more explicitly described this monism hereafter. In fine, it is a necessary implication that all existence should be singular if undivided. Existence must be undivided if non-existence does not exist to make the division, which it naturally does not by definition. For only non-existence could divide existence, as a thing is not divided by itself.
10. This is in accordance with the monism of the eighth admission. Who shirks at this implication must reveal by what means existence could be possibly divided. It is not absurd to call a red mosaic with some orange tiles red, but it is absurd to call a mosaic a thing which is disconnected and without unity. Any existences disconnected by vacuities of oblivion must be so destroyed, all interaction would be impossible, as oblivion is absolute, and so disprove the places between; for it is self-evident that a universe filled with an infinity of non-existence does not exist. Consider, if the definition of material restriction is a scarcity of material, what could be the definition of immaterial restriction? A dearth of nothing would be everything; an abundance of nothing would be a contradiction in terms; Nothing must be nothing, else it is something; and life must be Life, else it is Death.
A Note Concerning Space, Separation, and Limiters.
Animals first could live and that poorly. A cell maintains the long tradition of animal servitude. What do they serve? They serve the creative, or rather expressive, instinct which existence quite evidently possesses. When a man speaks of eternity however, or infinity, existence, perfection, God (for all these things are as aforesaid synonymous) there is a natural tendency to turn to the thickest and most compacted things he has encountered. That which is most solid, is is thought, is most real. From this there has come the vague enough conception of space as mere dimension, conflated indeed with gravity in Einstein’s spacetime. There is also that other preconception of many people, evident when they speak of the universe, which shows that by the universe they mean the observable universe, as distinguished from inscrutable spaces, voids, or vacuities, but this is surely a mistake. Firstly because space is quite obviously mingled with matter, so that neither can rightly be called independent, and secondly because that which is unseen does not for that reason lose reality. A smell is no less real than a rock, and most people live their lives in the realm of appearance although it has little enough meaning to the mole. If we had senses enough perhaps we could perceive more, but even if certain spaces are undetectable by their very nature that is no reason to belittle them in judgement or cry finitude upon the universe.
Rather, it has come to be gradually agreed in physics that there must be invisible, perhaps indiscernible, forms of existence which qualify the term space. For it is a most unsatisfactory term of itself. Of itself space means nothing, it is a negation, not an assertion, and consequently treacherous to its purpose as a word. Gradually, quite gradually, the empirical physical scientific thinkers have christened this infinite idea of imperceptible existence with the various terms of dark matter, dark energy, zero-point energy, and cosmological constant, literal examples of being in the dark. Howbeit none should think that when they dip their hands into an empty glass they are not as much in contact with reality as if they did so when the glass was full. The only limiters and restraints are those preconceived in small definitions.
Further Descriptions.
‘Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.’ 1 John. iv. 13.
—
On Human Understanding.
PROPOSITIONS.
I. Perception Perceives.
II. Conceptions Conceive.
III. Reality is Real.
IV. What is Real is Perceptible.
V. Our Conceptions are Conceived with Perceptions of Reality.
Their Evidence.
The propositions: Perception Perceives, Conceptions Conceive, Reality is Real, what is Real is Perceptible, and our Conceptions are Conceived with Perceptions of Reality, are evident to me because their denial seems to imply the following contradictions: Perception is blind, Reality is unreal, what is Real is imperceptible, and our Conceptions are not Conceived through Perceptions of Reality.
Explanations of Their Meaning.
Proposition I. Perception Perceives (Exists).
If Perception is Doubtful then the Doubt of Perception is Perceptible, or no Doubt were present.[2] Hence Perception Perceives.
Proposition II. Conceptions Conceive (Exist).
If Perception exists because it is impossible to detect that Doubt exists otherwise, then it is necessary that Conceptions exist in the human understanding, because, although it might be possible to Perceive without Conceiving or to Conceive without Perceiving, it must be impossible to Conceive of Perception, or for that matter to Perceive Conception, without possessing both. The one could not be guessed by the other. Hence Conceptions Conceive.
Proposition III. Reality is Real (Exists).
Where Reality is only Doubtful because it is a Conception–and if a Conception is only Doubtful because it is of human Perception–then the certainty of Perception must also affirm the certainty of Conception and Reality. Thus, as the Doubtful nature of human Perception attests the certainty of its Existence, so must it attest the certain Existence of Conceptions and Reality. That is, the Conception of Reality is Real, because Conception is Conceivable where Perception is Perceptible. Furthermore, it is not only that the Conception of Reality is plausible when Perception and Conception exist, but that the affirmation of certainty by means of Doubt is synonymously an affirmation of Reality by means of Illusion. It is a Reality that Reality exists when Illusion exists, as it is a Reality that certainty Exists in the presence of Doubt. Who Doubts certainty certainly Doubts, who calls Reality Illusory makes a Reality of Illusion. It is always by means of uncertainty that certainty is evinced, as it is always the implication of falsehood that there is a Truth which the falsehood corrupts.
Proposition IV. What is Real is Perceptible.
If Perception is Dependent on Reality then Perception is a part of the Independent Reality which provides for Perception (for all its contingencies). If Perception is not Dependent on Reality then Perception is equivalent to Reality itself, destroying all distinction between the two concepts. Hence it is conceptually necessary that Perception should be Dependent on Reality if it is not to be entirely confused with Reality itself. Therefore, what is real is perceptible.
Proposition V. Conceptions are Conceived through Perceptions of Reality.
If Conceptions are not Conceived through Perceptions indicative of Reality then they are Independent of Reality, and consequently of Truth where Reality is equivalent to Truth. Thus to dissolve the connection between Conception and Reality is to destroy the Reality of Conception. Either Conception exists through Reality or it exists in no manner whatever. That Perception must be the connection between the two is also self-evident, for Conception unperceived is merely Truth devoid of description, or Reality devoid of understanding.
[1] I take the word kind to mean anything positive. Thus limitlessness is unlimited in its positive variations but is naturally unable not to exist. This is a restriction in language but not in truth, as limitlessness is a concept of existence.
[2] I take Doubt multiplied by Doubt, or Perception
multiplied by Perception, to mean Doubt or Perception emphasised.
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment