HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 27, 2004 Plato postulated the existence of FORMS as the absolutes or templates from which all everyday phenomena derive their existence. Ultimately, there remains one FORM, in which all other FORMS partake, and this Plato calls The ONE. In essence, a FORM is thus a perfect, abstract and immutable idea in which imperfect, variant objects or instances participate. For instance, there are many different looking MEN in the world, but all of them have common qualities, which they inherit from the absolute FORM of a MAN. In other words, even if each man is distinctly individual from another, and non- identical in comparison to the absolute FORM of MAN, there are essential qualities in every man, which justifies his TYPE of being that of a man. Such it is with every existent or phenomenon in the world. One can summarize the condition as being that of a PROTOTYPE-CLONE relationship. However, what is the real significance of this IDEALIST-CATEGORICAL view? First, there is the assumption of the absolute(s) or “immutable truth (s)” and second, the assumption of separate entities. The problem of the ABSOLUTE: Plato saw the (physical) world around him as a chaotic condition of imperfection, decay, confusion and the less real or unreal representation or shadow of the TRUE world. This material world, thus, stands in contrast to the world of perfect, unchanging, eternal Truth. An important implication of all this is that ABSOLUTE FORM is the origin of the world we live in. This is the first problem: Plato supposes a cause of our imperfect world where this very cause is in it self uncaused and ABSOLUTE. Where does he suppose this ABSOLUTE comes from? This ABSOLUTE does not come from anywhere – it is eternal. In that case, one might as well do away with this so-called ABSOLUTE, as it has no cause anyway, and just stick with the chaotic, imperfect world we live in, which also has no cause. For in this mode of perception, the ABSOLUTE and the RELATIVE world come down to the same problem of being unexplained. Why superimpose an ABSOLUTE onto a RELATIVE? Our immediate world is enough of an unexplainable eternity of chaos – why be superfluous and complicate things by putting another unexplainable thing on top of another? In addition, there is a logical contradiction in arguing that something must have an origin, but that the proposed origin does not have an origin as such. On the assumption of an immutable truth, one need only say one thing: Truth does not exist, as it is never possible to be justified or limited – it is like the earth’s horizon: it keeps moving in the same direction of the approaching seeker; and it stops when the seeker stops. Truth or absolute is illusion. The problem of separate ENTITIES: The theory of FORMS also suggests the existence of separate entities or individualities. In other words, there is a certain object (being) with particular properties and another certain object (being) with different or common properties in comparison. In essence, Being – Nothing(ness) – Being. This poses a problem: there are two beings separated by nothing (ness). As a result, these two beings can not be perceived, as there is a gap of nothingness between them – perception participates in being – it is Being – nothingness is a bar which will separate the two beings into utter isolation and thus incomparable to each other. Nevertheless, there is another, perhaps more vital contradiction here: as there is nothing between the two beings (in order to have two separate beings, something must separate them) they form one being! Thus, it is Being Being Being, or rather, just Being. There is even another argument, which illustrates the non-existence of distinct FORMS. Where does one form begin and where does it end? For instance, when does a square seizes to be a square and begins to be a circle? Surely, one can see a square next to a circle, but that is an illusion played on the mind, because the infinite number of shapes in between the two perceived shapes, which enabled the transition from the one shape into another, is absent. If one could observe the evolving event of one shape into another by means of a device that shows each infinitely small alteration in the current shape, one would never see any difference, or at least, one would be unable to draw the line of distinction at any point between the two shapes. An end of a certain condition is at the same time also the beginning of another condition: thus, end and beginning is the same – there is no crossing-over point. Therefore, we can see that everything is one continuous line of solid Being! This is where philosophy begins: philosophizing should be to light the way to the selfish- internal qualification of the objective- irrelevance of all consciousness-willing- continuity towards that which it feels to be the final atmosphere in which 'is' continues infinitely and where this finality implies Consciousness-Willing-Continuity as in a static solidity with the 'IS (BEING)'. This c-w-c (consciousness-willing-continuity) in its reference to the 'is' eventually in its static impossibility of that which is possible fails in any 'describing' or 'willing' act to escape its own internal incompleteness in 'c-w- c', while against that it is complete in its mere eventuality as a continuity in 'is'. As any man casting a shadow and in endeavoring to jump over it, fails in its 'willing' so, but qualifies the 'willing-eventuality' as a continuity in 'is'. This is the one-solidity or 'willing' to the condition of 'is'. What I first want to motivate is the designation of the word 'is' as reference to Existence/Being as such. The 'is' here is important, as it points to existential overall, but it is grammatically as well as logically superfluous to say, “being is everywhere” as Sartre did. The 'is' is immediate in its anticipation of the static continuity. When we speak of 'being' that 'is' everywhere, it refers to its own plenitude and allows for recoil that supports consciousness as such - as Sartre supposed. But there is indeed no such condition in support for consciousness. Consciousness as we have seen is the consciousness-willing- continuity. It is an 'eventuality' in the sense of it continuing along the 'static' continuity and thus solidity in 'is'. If we do care to isolate the 'consciousness' from mere 'blind' continuity, it should be our contention that it as a c-w-c is a 'swollen' density in the solid continuity that is able to 'feel' or anticipate in this c-w-c. Therefore, it becomes clearer that in every instance of the use of "is" as such affirms its immediate static continuity in complete solidity. “Willing” is indeed of heavy importance in the whole process. It is the very struggling activity from within the c-w-c towards overcoming its willing as such and to rise beyond all 'is'. It has always and is still endeavoring to become loose from it all in order to see itself without any definition in 'is'. At the same time it realizes in utter frustration that such an 'act' would additionally transcend itself into another 'willing'- it will continue as yet another solidity in an infinity of continuity. It simply cannot 'escape' the escaping as such, nor the internal will to do so itself. There is no 'other' than 'this'. It is 'this' and no 'other' that we are not able to escape even if we 'do'- because then the 'this' has merely continued. 'Infinite' is in infinite implication. That means that the idea of the 'infinite' is not a mere empty continuity. 'Infinity' as such implies its own 'substance' or 'processes'. It is everything, including our 'will' and all other 'things'. Infinity can never be without its implied content or process. Infinity is not an emptiness that needs the separate 'creation' of its content. It is its own content. Now this infinite implication also means that every so- called entity or object into which we inquire we find incomplete in its essence. That is, when we divide it into smaller and smaller 'particles' we see that every time we have to account for the make-up of each one. Whether these 'parts/particles' be 'dimensions', 'waves', 'strings', or anything as such that goes by a definition, it always goes on into infinity. This 'Infinity' has no 'direction' or 'position' or any kind of meaning, besides that it happens/'is'. What is, perhaps, the most important here is the idea that we find in every investigated instance its own incompleteness or insufficiency to support its very essence, and that is due to the continuity that is solidly through the eternal 'is'. There is no room for any real definition or distinction in 'is'. Even our own observation of such 'distinctions' reveals the very continuity in 'showing' a ‘gap’. In instance of 'showing' or 'revealing' any 'being' or 'nothingness' is an implication of the complete solidity in continuity. The escaping meaning of any absolute is the appearance of the Original-Willing-Revelation. This O-W-R is a revelation to the C-W-C, which will claim to be its initiator and delimiter on its 'conscious-willing' part. It seems unquestionable that the uncertainty of immediate reality is present and that an affirming revelation of an absolute kind is necessary to “verify” the present experienced condition of the C-W-C, or to suggest an alternative reality. Thus in the event of such a revelation happening the C-W-C will be justified in doubting the meaning of the revealing act. In this instance, it will require an additional O-W-R to prove the first one. Consequently, it will happen in every O-W-R condition. Therefore, because of our ability to doubt every instance of an absolute revelation, we will never know the meaning of our claims to truth. ------------ About the author Werner Reyneke: I am a 23 year old passionate writer/poet in my spare time and a computer programmer by proffession. Visit my website to see my first published book. I live in South Africa and have been published in a local newspaper (some poems in Haiku form) for the first time in February 2000. I have also been selected for publication in a VoicesNet Anthology (visit www.Voicesnet.org) and a Poetry.com (ILP Publishers) anthology called "Eternal Portraits"). Visit my website at: http://myweb.absa.co.za/wreyneke/Mybook.htm Email: wreyneke@absamail.co.za Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
