The One

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

The One

Post by Nick_A »

Secular philosophy is based on inductive bottom up reason. It combines facts to create conclusions. If enough facts are combined it is believed it will either prove or disprove God

Transcendent philosophy is top down and proceeds by deductive reason. It begins with a God concept that is wholeness. The universe is created by fragmentation of wholeness into lower levels of reality producing fragmented facts. Transcendent philosophy needs a conception of the Source which can be built upon. Plotinus provides such a concept.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/
a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.8); for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.8). This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.
Does this concept resonate with you? Do you feel it contains truth in it that a person could gradually become consciously able to experience or is it just nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by graduates of secular progressive education? This is not a debate about right or wrong. It is just a venture into our understanding.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The One

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:55 am Do you feel it contains truth in it that a person could gradually become consciously able to experience or is it just nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by graduates of secular progressive education?
I don't think it is just nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by graduates of secular progressive education, I think it is nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by everyone. Who do you think it should be ridiculed and condemned by, Nick?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:35 pm
Nick_A wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:55 am Do you feel it contains truth in it that a person could gradually become consciously able to experience or is it just nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by graduates of secular progressive education?
I don't think it is just nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by graduates of secular progressive education, I think it is nonsense that must be ridiculed and condemned by everyone. Who do you think it should be ridiculed and condemned by, Nick?
Without question top down philosophic speculation concerning a conscious source should be condemned by Nancy Pelosi, a highly regarded advocate of progressive philosophy The very thought that she must endure such an insulting idea written of in public is too much of a burden for any dedicated public servant to tolerate.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The One

Post by Greta »

I think that some people try very hard to think of ways of rationalising what they wish to be true. However, just because something may possibly be true does not mean it is.

The One is an obvious concept. Of course every big thing is made up of many little things, so there is logically a biggest thing and that "biggest thing" will logically be beyond our comprehension. This is all pretty obvious logic.

The question then is whether smaller things tap into the energy supply of their containing entities. If so, how would they know that the quasi psyche (or whatever) that they tap into during metaphysical moments is The One and not one of its many constituent layers that contain us? If an intelligent universe can commune with us, why not an intelligent galactic supercluster or intelligent Milky Way, Sun or Earth?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The One

Post by Lacewing »

Greta wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:37 pm The One is an obvious concept. Of course every big thing is made up of many little things, so there is logically a biggest thing and that "biggest thing" will logically be beyond our comprehension.
Might it be less assuming to say there are "bigger things", rather than a "biggest thing"?

And isn't "one" a human concept? What if there is NO "one" of anything... just lots of possibilities and overlap and continual expansion and contraction?
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The One

Post by Science Fan »

When you allege that secular philosophy has a goal for itself of being able to either prove or disprove god, I have no idea why you are making this assertion. What is the definition for this alleged god? Depending on the definition you provide, it may be child's play to prove no such god exists, or that there will never be a proof one way or the other regarding its existence.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The One

Post by Greta »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:58 pm
Greta wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:37 pm The One is an obvious concept. Of course every big thing is made up of many little things, so there is logically a biggest thing and that "biggest thing" will logically be beyond our comprehension.
Might it be less assuming to say there are "bigger things", rather than a "biggest thing"?

And isn't "one" a human concept? What if there is NO "one" of anything... just lots of possibilities and overlap and continual expansion and contraction?
Hi LW. The way I see it, everything we observe is relative - things inside things inside things. Logically there'd be a biggest thing with nothing outside of it - a universe or multiverse.

Consider the cosmic web. We don't know how big it is, how far it goes. Guesses are that the observable universe is orders of magnitude smaller than the whole thing. Then again, why couldn't the cosmic web simply be a "supercluster of superclusters", with other "supercluster of superclusters" so far away that their light can't reach this universe during its lifespan?

Still, logic suggests there must be smallest, baseline entities and a largest whole, although these dimensions may expand with every more smaller and structures being created.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

I appreciate everyone responding and it is clear that the responses are based on inductive reason. Deductive reason requires opening to what is meant by the One. We can’t do it so rely on inductive reason. From the explanation of the One:
……………the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding………………….

……………….The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One…………………………
We cannot experience these ideas so as to understand them and appreciate their implications through discursive inductive reason. How then does a person become capable of deductive reason which necessitates inwardly grasping these ideas? Secularism prefers to deny them in favor of arguing pragmatic concerns. Yet they do resonate with some people and these people feel that they remind them of something important that they have forgotten. If the need is sufficient, they become capable of the ancient skill of impartial pondering, a higher form of reason which can make deductive reason possible.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The One

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 amI appreciate everyone responding and it is clear that the responses are based on inductive reason.
Only to you, and only because you have engineered a definition of "inductive reason" that is not shared by anyone else on the planet.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 amDeductive reason requires opening to what is meant by the One.
Again, that is according to your unique world view. Most people, i.e. the roughly seven and a half billion people who aren't you, understand deductive reason to require a couple of premises and the logical investigation of their consequences.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The One

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 am I appreciate everyone responding and it is clear that the responses are based on inductive reason. Deductive reason requires opening to what is meant by the One. We can’t do it so rely on inductive reason. From the explanation of the One:
……………the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding………………….

……………….The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One…………………………
Sure, whatever is the ultimate layer of reality is not something we can know because we are deeply embedded on the inside. By the same token, there's a huge amount of the Earth that we cannot access and don't understand too, let alone our solar system, galaxy, galactic clusters and superclusters or The All.

The spiritual knowledge claimed to be gleaned from the Source is something that mystics have banged on about for millennia. I've had my own little experiences so I know why the mystics hype it all up. My issue is just with the claims by theists that they have a hotline to this fundamental level of reality, and some understanding of it, while "secularists" don't.

Based on my own accidental mystical experiences and what I know of others' controlled mystical experiences, we often tend to come away from "touching the divine" a little wiser, more sanguine, grounded and grateful for everything good in our lives.

If someone was regularly enjoying genuine peak experiences like this they would be impressive in their calm acceptance and ability to smoothly move through life. However, those online who make such claims seem more agitated than average rather than less. Whatever it is that they are accessing, either it is a counterfeit or their ego attachment to the idea of being superior via those experiences is inhibiting their personal growth.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

uwot wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:10 am
Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 amI appreciate everyone responding and it is clear that the responses are based on inductive reason.
Only to you, and only because you have engineered a definition of "inductive reason" that is not shared by anyone else on the planet.
Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:29 amDeductive reason requires opening to what is meant by the One.
Again, that is according to your unique world view. Most people, i.e. the roughly seven and a half billion people who aren't you, understand deductive reason to require a couple of premises and the logical investigation of their consequences.
Since you are living in a secular dominated society, it is understandable that you are unaware of deductive reason in relation to philosophy. Even though as we are we only experience it superficially, it is enough to open the mind to the benefits of conscious contemplation as opposed to continually arguing opinions in quest of understanding.

A person can through deductive reason visualize the emanation of the One into multiplicity. A person can get a glimpse of how the One outside of time and space produces Nous which is the beginning of creation in time and space. From the article.
b. The Intelligence

The Intelligence (Nous) is the true first principle -- the determinate, referential 'foundation' (arkhe) -- of all existents; for it is not a self-sufficient entity like the One, but rather possesses the ability or capacity to contemplate both the One, as its prior, as well as its own thoughts, which Plotinus identifies with the Platonic Ideas or Forms (eide). The purpose or act of the Intelligence is twofold: to contemplate the 'power' (dunamis) of the One, which the Intelligence recognizes as its source, and to meditate upon the thoughts that are eternally present to it, and which constitute its very being. The Intelligence is distinct from the One insofar as its act is not strictly its own (or an expression of self-sufficiency as the 'act' of self-reflection is for the One) but rather results in the principle of order and relation that is Being -- for the Intelligence and Being are identical (V.9.8).
From Rodney Collin’s book: The Theory of Celestial Influence
In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."
Secularism being only concerned with reactive life in the world is unconcerned with the conscious potential for our inner life which is an attribute of objective human meaning and purpose. It becomes hostile to deductive reason since it blocks itself from it. I thank the powers that be that impartial conscious contemplation and its tool of deductive reason, though outside of the mainstream, is still alive in the world
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The One

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Nick_A wrote:Secular philosophy is based on inductive bottom up reason. It combines facts to create conclusions. If enough facts are combined it is believed it will either prove or disprove God
I think you need to review your misguided conceptions about what secularism is:
1) You think atheism is necessarily implied in secularism, but it is not. Most atheists, in case they take a political stance, would favor secularism, but there can be secularists who hold religious beliefs, that also think those are their private matters and thus, they will endorse the separation of church and state. Thomas Paine, who's many times regarded as a founding father of secularism, was not even an atheist.
2) Secularism is based on both inductive and deductive reasoning. You're reducing secularists to empiricists, but that's not the case. If you read the Humanist Manifesto, which in great part reflects the aspirations of secularists, you will find many appeals to both reason and experience:
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... anifesto3/
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully.


Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Nick_A wrote:Transcendent philosophy is top down and proceeds by deductive reason. It begins with a God concept that is wholeness. The universe is created by fragmentation of wholeness into lower levels of reality producing fragmented facts. Transcendent philosophy needs a conception of the Source which can be built upon. Plotinus provides such a concept.
Transcendent philosophy, as shaped by theologians and clerics, is top down and proceeding by dogmas. The only way up is that they take these dogmas and elaborate reasons to justify them.

We can take the universe as the wholeness. No need for creators.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

Conde Lucanor
I think you need to review your misguided conceptions about what secularism is:
Secularism limits itself to one level of reality. Anyone who perceives the universe structured on levels of reality and the being of man as an expression of this structure cannot be secular.
If you read the Humanist Manifesto, which in great part reflects the aspirations of secularists, you will find many appeals to both reason and experience
Aspirations aren’t the problem. The problem is the human condition which makes them impossible
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” ~ Simone Weil
That is the kicker and if supposedly educated secularists are blind to advanced philosophical speculations like these being offered by Plotinus, how can they be open to the beneficial effects of grace on the human psyche much less why the aspirations of humanism are impossible without the awakening effects of grace. Under these conditions what else can be expected other than secular denial and intolerance?
Transcendent philosophy, as shaped by theologians and clerics, is top down and proceeding by dogmas. The only way up is that they take these dogmas and elaborate reasons to justify them.


What is the dogma associated with the One? How would you suggest beginning to dissect the One in order to verify or deny it?
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The One

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Nick_A wrote: Conde Lucanor
Conde Lucanor wrote:I think you need to review your misguided conceptions about what secularism is:
Secularism limits itself to one level of reality. Anyone who perceives the universe structured on levels of reality and the being of man as an expression of this structure cannot be secular.
Since you have provided no counterarguments, I must assume you have acknowledged the two points I made:
1) You think atheism is necessarily implied in secularism, but it is not.
2) Secularism is based on both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Now, let's go on. When saying "levels of reality", it could mean more than one concept. If we're talking about physical reality as the one level of reality secularists will acknowledge, then it's true, because there's no other reality available to man. If there were another "reality", it wouldn't even be knowledgeable, conceivable, the same way the inhabitants of a two dimensional world could not perceive and conceive a third dimension if it were not available to them.
Nick_A wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: If you read the Humanist Manifesto, which in great part reflects the aspirations of secularists, you will find many appeals to both reason and experience
Aspirations aren’t the problem. The problem is the human condition which makes them impossible
You may think so, but the point being made was that secularism is based on both inductive and deductive reasoning.

If the human condition makes any aspiration impossible, then it would also make impossible any aspiration to connect with God, The One, or whatever you may want to call it. The burden would be fully in the hands of this supreme entity to make something happen, wouldn't it?
Nick_A wrote:
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” ~ Simone Weil
That is the kicker and if supposedly educated secularists are blind to advanced philosophical speculations like these being offered by Plotinus, how can they be open to the beneficial effects of grace on the human psyche much less why the aspirations of humanism are impossible without the awakening effects of grace. Under these conditions what else can be expected other than secular denial and intolerance?
Same problem: if man cannot turn to himself to find this supposed entity of grace, then all human efforts are meaningless. What is, is what was meant to be. Words like "psyche", "awakening", "beneficial effects", etc., all ultimately refer to the mundane day to day life of people, the one "level of reality" we're supposed to leave behind in order to transcend. If the so called "grace" was really something, it would have to show up in extraordinary form, but all we see are preachers. Nothing extraordinary or transcendental about them.
Nick_A wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:Transcendent philosophy, as shaped by theologians and clerics, is top down and proceeding by dogmas. The only way up is that they take these dogmas and elaborate reasons to justify them.


What is the dogma associated with the One? How would you suggest beginning to dissect the One in order to verify or deny it?
The most basic dogma: that the One is a person, or a will, or a consciousness. It is never the end of a deductive process, it cannot be. When it tries to show that it can, it immediately resorts to experience, which it said it despised.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

Conde Lucanor
Since you have provided no counterarguments, I must assume you have acknowledged the two points I made:
1) You think atheism is necessarily implied in secularism, but it is not.
2) Secularism is based on both inductive and deductive reasoning.
Atheism can mean many things. An atheist may not believe in one personal god or many gods or any gods yet may believe in the great Beast which is the God of society. So it is a hard question to do justice to.

Both deductive and inductive reason are used within the one level of reality of secularism. However, in order to understand the connection between a conscious Source of creation outside of time and space and creation itself, the body of God, a person must be open to the use of deductive reason that can visualize levels of reality like the Russian dolls where one exists within the other.
Now, let's go on. When saying "levels of reality", it could mean more than one concept. If we're talking about physical reality as the one level of reality secularists will acknowledge, then it's true, because there's no other reality available to man. If there were another "reality", it wouldn't even be knowledgeable, conceivable, the same way the inhabitants of a two dimensional world could not perceive and conceive a third dimension if it were not available to them.
Before considering the structure of the universe as levels of reality, can you admit the potential for two levels of reality referred to by Plato in the divided line analogy? If not, then the structure of the universe based on levels of reality will be nonsense for you.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/k ... _line.html

Plato spoke of the intelligible world beyond the visible world the secularist claims as the totality of reality. But as soon as a person opens to the reality of the intelligible world as a higher level of reality, then the question of its source appears which Plato called the Good and Plotinus called the One.

I
f the human condition makes any aspiration impossible, then it would also make impossible any aspiration to connect with God, The One, or whatever you may want to call it. The burden would be fully in the hands of this supreme entity to make something happen, wouldn't it?
If this were true, the Ways would be useless. A person may walk up to a piano and be unable to play it. This doesn’t mean they cannot develop the ability to play the piano. A person beginning with the sincere efforts to “know thyself” can become capable of experiencing higher consciousness. The world may frown upon it but those with the need and courage can develop themselves inwardly on the path to becoming conscious individuals.
Same problem: if man cannot turn to himself to find this supposed entity of grace, then all human efforts are meaningless. What is, is what was meant to be. Words like "psyche", "awakening", "beneficial effects", etc., all ultimately refer to the mundane day to day life of people, the one "level of reality" we're supposed to leave behind in order to transcend. If the so called "grace" was really something, it would have to show up in extraordinary form, but all we see are preachers. Nothing extraordinary or transcendental about them.
Imagine a human being as like a green plant. The roots of the plant require good soil to properly grow. At the same time the leaves of the plant receive sunlight necessary for its growth

It is the same with a human being. The roots or the lower parts of the collective human essence requires a healthy society and a metaxu that emphasizes human quality. At the same time the higher parts of the human essence requires the nourishment of grace just like the plant needs the sunlight. When we remain closed the quality of human being is diminished just as the plant is killed or diminished without sunlight. A healthy metaxu and the conscious opening to receive the nourishment of grace assures normal healthy human beings. The human condition as it is prevents what should be normal.
The most basic dogma: that the One is a person, or a will, or a consciousness. It is never the end of a deductive process, it cannot be. When it tries to show that it can, it immediately resorts to experience, which it said it despised.
You are referring to man made interpretations and idolatry. The One is not a person.
Post Reply