Being and Synthesis

As eternal, infinite, and conscious being, it is believed to be the subject, rather than the object, of thought. As the Absolute of all things known, it is incapable of being characterized or circumscribed by any one thing, or even by the totality of things.

What is this? It is a reference to Brahman - divine cosmic power.

In the sacred Brahmanas and Upanishads, Brahman describes the first cause of the universe, and designates the impersonal principle. 1

It was in approximately 1100 that the Hindu ascetic Ramanuja, proposed a qualified monism, seeing Brahman as personal deity in distinction to individuality and the individual soul. The personification of the impersonal to the personal is not a contradiction as might be suspected, Although Brahman had not been seen this way before, instead it is dependent on a directed focus: the all, universum, stands in impersonal objectivity to the singular and individual, whereas the latter stands in personal relation to the all.
Shankara (788-820,) originator of Advaita Vedanta, preceding Ramanuja, believed that the individual soul, atman, was fundamentally identical with the universal being, Brahman, where instead, individualised consciousness identified with maya, the illusionary aspect, of samsara, the continual natural arising of things, and could not realise the oneness with the single ultimate because of ignorance, avidhya. This ignorance is effectively described as “a type of mental hallucination.” 2 The idea therefore, that self-aware “I-ness” is separate from the underlying single All, is a phase of interpretation and being which can be transcended, not just in theoretical recognition, but actuality, in progressive states of enlightenment.

The concept that the Absolute is incapable of being characterized or circumscribed by any one thing, or even by the totality of things, amounts to inattributability - the inapplicable concept of identifying symptomatic attributes, or for that matter, allocating such attributes. Brahman is regarded as an all-pervading, timeless, undifferentiated and transcendent state of being which is pragmatically indescribable.

The concept of Brahman supports my own thesis which proposes that universal ontogeny resulted from quantisation of an indivisible, singular, inattributable infinite via various phase transitions of reintegrative evolutionary synthesis, parallel to the concept of Brahman. Although this thesis does not specifically identify theocentrically or secularly with it, it recognises common principle, but is expounded in the light of pragmatic scientific research as well as deep spiritual dynamics and empirically supported inductive modelling.

Attribution is a process of allocating symptomatic characteristics. When we see a flower, we may describe it as e.g. either staminate or pistillate or monoecious, define it as having determinate or indeterminate florescences, further go on to say that is has composite flowers, e.g. in this case purple, and give it its name, Ageratum houstonianum - we can even write a 100-page descriptive booklet on it. Fundamentally, this is a process of seeing, and describing things in terms of other things. More pertinently, a thing, any thing, takes on meaning only in terms of other things. The more its relationships and interactivity with all non-thing are perceived, and understood, the more defined it becomes, seen for what it is, and authentic meaning it has.

Such characteristics can of course be deductively derived from an internalised frame of reference, a neurologically embedded world-model, weltblick, comprising elements describing both sensorally, and psychodynamically perceivable reality, and reallocated attributively to a subject entity. What is important to realise is that in the perception of a unitary ontological entity, attributional elements may be allocated in a process of cognitive approximation, “recognition,” with correlation to perceptual elements of an internalised reference matrix, or alternatively, projectively allocated.

Elements of the internalised reference matrix are experientially, dynamically updated and, in higher hierarchical holographic integrations, accurise each other mutually - the reference matrix and elements of it therefore perform a perceptual-cognitive filtering action. Projective attributional allocation is synthetic, a coarser instance of what we usually would mean by first approximation in a process of perceptual recognition - for example, in the prediction of a new “fundamental” particle the existence of which is strongly suspected, several attributes may be inductively allocated which can not yet be empirically proven. Things, or unitary ontological entities, may not even be recognisable if there are no reasonably well-integrated perceptual-cognitive analogs in the reference matrix – oft- quoted examples are the first-instance interpretations of highly advanced technological objects by aboriginals who have not had previous exposure to these. Both around the African and South American coasts, early explorers' sailing ships were recognised as “clouds.” In more modern context, aircraft may be recognised as “enormous birds.” Rifles might be called “thundersticks.” The cognitive processing with its concomitant perceptual phenomenon may well have a bearing on interpreting the actual causative stimuli associated with the UFO phenomenon and what is “seen.” Underlying this is a perceptual-cognitive process of associating elements of the unknown with elements of the known and interpreting the unknown in terms of the known. In psychoneuroimmunology, PNI, it is well-understood that the entire perceptual-cognitive reference matrix has an essential holographic nature consisting of fractal elements of perception (FEPs – FV) which in their higher integrations allow a neurologically embedded modelling reference of perceived reality of both self, and non-self, this being biased deterministically by a preliminary genetic determinant, and a consequent dynamic experiential updating. There is very much to say about this from the viewpoint of morphogenetic embryogenesis and preliminary cerebral neurigenesis with the synaptic programming and massive neural resorption that takes place – this is however beyond the scope of this concise article and treated in great detail in my book The Nature of Being © FV. One important perspective is that the post-partum neurological model is not a tabula rasa but has preliminary deterministic modelling present, that this is seminally influenced by the early nurturing period, and progressively becomes more autonomously programmed by a process of continual choice of alternatives, in inclination, action, and interpretation.

This process is also the basis of anthropomorphisation - allocating human attributes to the non-human, or interpreting the non-human in terms of human characteristics. Encyclopaedic entries will tell us that “mythology concerns itself exclusively with anthropomorphic gods.” When perceiving attributes of already personified forces, it is, for many, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to refrain from anthropomorphisation - the human attribution cognitively-emotionally involved in this process is one that mediates and catalyses personal identification. Both Vth Century Greek philosophers Plato and Xenophanes observed that gods worshipped in a particular geographical area were attributed racial and other human characteristics particular to those areas. Both were critical of this inclination and condemned it, Xenophanes observing that the “recognised” attributes of the gods told more about those humans whose gods they were than they revealed about the divine itself. Plato specifically protested attributing human failings to the gods - it is interesting to conjecture whether in a more enlightened context, divinely issued commands towards the destruction of individual beings, other tribes or entire nations should be regarded as “failings.” Both Plato and Xenophanes had an ambition to purify religion in abolishing what they regarded as a crude and primitive process of divine anthropomorphisation.

Allied to the Brahmanic Absolute concept, are the personified dynamics of creation, preservation and destruction (incidentally also identifiable as anabolic, homeostatic and catabolic processes) in an indivisible synthesis of trinity, the Trimurti: respectively Brahma as creator, Vishnu as preserver and Shiva as destroyer. The concept of the Egyptian trinitarian ennead, a sacred father, mother, and son, is probably at least as ancient, and both vastly precede the idea of the Christian trinity. 3 Translating into analogy, this ennead may also be seen as the interweaving of Yin and Yang, the feminine and masculine principle, and their product.

In identifying a very specific ontological item, the more qualifying attributes allocated to it, the greater unique identification becomes. We can also see this process in the explorative focussing in on highly specific ontological entities: the more accurately we can identify its phenomenon in terms of other phenomena, the more positive its identification becomes. We can see this relationship roughly as a triangle lying on its side, the broad base representing the spectral range of allocated attributes, and the vertex pointing to, and identifying the subjectified ontological entity, as the focal target of this attribution. Conversely, there is another triangle superimposed on the first, reversed, the vertex of each touching the base of the other - this models the phenomenon that the greater a common class of ontological items is that we refer to, the fewer common attributional elements will apply to each of its constituent items - in other words, the effectively descriptive attributional set tends to shrink. We can see this in simple operation in a description of, for example, Homo sapiens, in the identification of which we could write an entire encyclopaedia, compared with the necessary description of Animalia, (which includes Homo) of which we might say that they are “multicellular organisms obtaining energy by eating food.” In comparison, an encyclopaedic entry on Homo sapiens states: “Homo sapiens is identified, for purposes of classification, as an animal (kingdom Animalia) with a backbone (phylum Chordata) and segmented spinal cord (subphylum Vertebrata) that suckles its young (class Mammalia); that gestates its young with the aid of a placenta (subclass Eutheria); that is equipped with five-digited extremities, a collarbone, and a single pair of mammary glands on the chest (order Primates); and that has eyes at the front of the head, stereoscopic vision, and a proportionately large brain (suborder Anthropoidea). 4 A somewhat fatuous attempt at falsifying this valuable conceptual perspective is to think that one could rather easily write a bigger encyclopaedia about “Animalia” than about “Homo sapiens,” surely. This would substantially miss the point - it concerns minimum attributional sets which allow effective differentiation from what would otherwise include unwanted entity elements in the same class. As another example we might use the attributional complex SiO2 (Silicon dioxide), then successively focus attributionally in on: “geologically natural SiO2 (this attributional vertex now identifies “quartz”); add to it the complex, “translucent, microcrystalline grey-blue chalcedony alternating with opaque non-crystalline white opaline bands,” and the vertex of this identifies banded agate. We become aware in this process that attributional qualifiers also have a holographic aspect: they share large integrated complexes of fractal attributional elements common to them. An unbounded, limitless attributional qualifier would therefore contain a limitless number of integrated attributional/perceptional elements. In the avoidance of anthropomorphisation and imposing a bounding definition on the divine conferred by attribution, the ultimate perception of the divine is non-attributional. For those practising forms of transcendental meditation, this may be an incidental opening mantra. 5

The divine is of course just that, divine – remaining is the endless attribution of this infinite and sacred word, what it is that you understand by it. Plato and Xenophanes suggest that this should not be based on, or expanded by simplistic anthropocentric definition, in anthropomorphisation. Well, what is the alternative – it is perhaps that you should start thinking for yourself instead of letting others do the thinking for you. Of course, that extreme arrogance, as no doubt some would interpret it, is actually meant in all possible humbleness.

Frank Valentyn





Endnotes

1. Sacred Sanskrit literature of the Vedic Period, ~ 1500 - 200 BPE

2. This occurs in Alan Clements' book, Instinct for Freedom, where the Burmese monk Mahasi Sayadaw, visiting New York, mentions, “Ignorance is a type of mental hallucination.” Clements, Alan; Instinct for Freedom; subtitled “Finding Liberation through Living” ; publ. New World Library, Novato, California (2002) ISBN 1-57731-212-0; p33

3. Peake's Commentary on the Bible states:
“The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.”

4. Encarta Electronic Encyclopaedia (2003) Entry under Homo sapiens; human

5. Mantra, Sanskrit: “Instrument of thought”

Mikmik deary, your are the funniest! Go put on your lipstick and celebrate! Your "arguments" and "propositions" are based on value judgments and personal taste and your language is completely horrific - it's so clear to everybody that what really counts here is your personal animosity towards Tachyon, and that no "technique" is low enough for you - sheesh, everyone can see the indignant froth on your lips!

He's right, if you had some culture and class, and according to your own admission "what can I expect when I'm abusive", if you used a civil approach like others on this thread you might not get the reaction you do. But then it appears you were specially "created" and in that case sweety, there is of course no possibility for you to evolve a little more.

I would like to refer readers to editorial in Scienceweek regarding their stance towards the unfortunate polarisation between evolutionary mechanisms and creationism: Creationism versus Sanity This also substantiates my deep sadness with regard to the non-evolutionary view. I do however, as I repeatedly offer, believe that this polarisation, much as that is tenaciously opposed by fundamentalists, is resolvable in a higher, more holistic perspective.

With regard to the repeated mention of Morphogenetic Fields in my articles and the evidence that exists for them, here are some excellent sites presenting perspective, thorough scientific research and incontrovertible fact.

For the most Complete Refutation of Creationist Claims comprising literally hundreds of well-indexed and searchable scientific analyses, I have not found a better source of effective disproofs.

Take into account here, that I fundamentally oppose simplistic conventional creationism - not the principle of evolutive creation or creative evolution, which when taken to its primary ontogenetic origins does not deny, but strongly confirms a deeper percept of creation.

FV

Mandy66, you said