Scholarly Critique -1
Home Up Site Map


his consideration seeks only to clarify what man is able to know and subsequently verify as being non-obstructive to the optimum realization of the potential inherent in his idea of freewill.  Hence, it is preoccupied with promoting a fundamental truth that is innate to everyone's knowing process.  This focus allows it to cut across all prior boundaries of race, color, creed, and persuasion -- be it religious or otherwise.  Here's how it works.

Knowledge assumes to relevance by way of dichotomy, or the ability to successfully conceptualize the exclusion of an idea as verification of its substance -- irrespective of whether that idea has a demonstrable reality by way of our senses or not.  Without this ability, mind cannot move from one idea to the next.

However, existing between what we characterize as something and what we characterize as nothing, idea is by nature infinitely viable for us.  That is why the qualification of a constant that is relative to all idea has proved to be such a daunting task.  To date, no such construct enjoys formal recognition.  However, this is about to change with the introduction of the formal proof I just articulated.

As previously indicated, my use of the term 'certainty' refers to that which cannot be denied without necessarily invalidating the logical route by which the denier confirms his or her own existence.  This qualifier causes the idea of ‘certainty’ to assume a subjectivity that is particulate even as it is universal.  The universal implication stems from the fact that it applies to every form of self similarly.  By so doing it obviously characterizes the ultimate form of self -- or that foundation from which the delineation of all thought inherently arises.  As such, 'certainty' is an idea that is actually indistinguishable from its own potential.

It is this unique characteristic that causes it to be inseparable from our idea of Deity; since it necessarily qualifies "that of which no greater can be conceived."  Even though 'certainty' inherently constitutes a definition for both Deity and self; and even though it undeniably confirms our mutual co-existence in idea, its form causes us to be temporally different by way of reflection.

How is all this related to the historical characterizations of Ultimacy?  It's actually consistent with all of them as opposed to being partial to any specific one.  The reason is because this understanding limits the defining of Deity to that which is relative yet simultaneously unknowable in extent to the knowing process in use.  Were Deity anything other than relative to us, Its existence (or beingness) would be meaningless to us.  On the other hand, if we were able to totally characterize Deity by way of our knowing process, we would then be unable to differentiate between our potential and It.

Hence, we have a fundamental need to employ both differences in our definition of Ultimacy.  And, as situation would have it, that is exactly what mankind has historically done.  This is more than evident when you strip away all the non-essential elements that have been attributed to Deity in order to make the idea of Ultimacy more palatable.

However, linking the ideas of sameness and difference together within the same conclusion is not without its problems.  Because of the limitations inherent to our use of language, we are inclined to see time as a singularity.  Were it otherwise, it would violate the unity of content that appears to be necessary to allow language to serve as a means for communication.

Nonetheless, that is exactly what our need to characterize Deity does; it violates the unity of language by promoting the idea of "succession within simultaneity" or difference within sameness, thereby establishing the need for more than one form of 'time.'  It is around this problem, regarding what constitutes the true nature of 'time,' that the lines of conflict have been traditionally drawn -- whether the respective proponents realize it or not.

Religion has opted to incorporate additional elements into language that reflect the multiplicity of 'time,' even though doing so inherently destroys the continuity of the vehicle necessary to characterize them.  Hence, it has been forced to resort to 'mystery' to explain this difference.

Science on the other hand has opted to remain loyal to the dictates that allow language to remain a continuity; even though this has resulted in major paradoxes that neither it, or other language dependent disciplines, can resolve.  The wave /particle controversy regarding the nature of light is but one.  Unable to communicate with one another, because of this foundational difference in the way they envision 'time' (hence use language) science and religion have gone their separate ways.

With the progression of education, pressure has continued to mount upon both to further qualify their respective positions.  In spite of that, no one has found a way to resolve this issue.  This is because none has previously existed.  However, with the discovery of 'certainty' that has now changed.  For the first time in the history of mankind we now have a tangible example of the true nature of 'time' -- one that does not violate the language which allows for its representation.  What is even more surprising here, instead of excluding either prior representation of 'time' as might be expected (that of religion or science), it actually embraces both.  Here’s how the whole thing works.

We bear witness to the fact that there is "order within the unknowable."  We cannot help but do so because we constitute that order.  Whether it is real or imagined is of little consequence here; since we are undeniably dependent upon it -- whatever its origin or makeup.  Admission of the existence of ‘order within the unknowable’ necessarily causes us to see the unknowable (within which we exist) as likewise ordered.  One half of the unknowable is characterized as being pre-self, while the other half is seen to be post-self.  This characterization is inevitable, since our ability to reflect is inseparable from the linear process it spawns.  This causes these divisions to be characterized as equals ( and ) -- since quantitative distinction between aspects of the unknowable cannot be made except with reference to position ('pre' and 'post' self).

In other words, the idea of ‘order within the unknowable' (which constitutes the lesser form of self) is inextricably bound to the idea of an ‘ordered unknowable’ (or the greater form of self) by way of the actual formation of idea itself.  Were it otherwise, the idea of ‘order within the unknowable’ could not assume to temporal relevance for us; since the quantitative inference associated with it (of and by itself) is that of nothing.

Only by associating the quantitative inference of nothing (time) with a positional reference internal to the field from which its possibility springs (space/time or place) -- one that can be theoretically confirmed via the immediate sense of self -- can the idea of nothing transcend its own limitations and assume to the form of something.  This is the actual transition that the proof you've just considered exploits.

In other words, the idea of an ‘ordered unknowable’ (being qualitative) is actually the opposing form of ‘order within the unknowable’ (the quantitative).  Together, they constitute the foundational form of dichotomy (something /nothing) which then pervades all further thought.  Were we unable to characterize the dichotomous elements of the unknowable, we would be unable to conceptualize its difference and hence our own.

It is a point of fact that the physical prevents us from being separated from our idea of reality upon which our idea of self necessarily rests.  It does so by limiting us to seeing everything as being quantitatively dependent upon our ability to characterize it.  This activity constitutes what is called subjectivity.  Nothing is excluded from this scenario, because all thought is inherently limited to being a comparative reflection upon self (pre-influence) as opposed to self (post-influence).  It is only in this way that self is able to confirm its own continuance -- by way of the continual change it successively perceives between these two states of itself.

As a result, no thing can be permanent for us.  This is because everything that we are capable of making distinction between is characterized by way of a process that is forever incomplete.  Were it to become complete, it would no longer be a process and hence would exclude the knowing element.  When characterized against a backdrop of opposing infinities (eternity) all permanence is reduced to nothing more than the idea that causes its difference to be known -- irrespective of its temporary effect upon that which currently is.

Hence, any insinuation that we might be playing a word game here is totally without merit.  Why?  Because the only thing that does not change with time are the ideas that characterize some specific time.  As a result, these ideas necessarily become the substance of which permanence is about.  Nothing else to which we have access qualifies.

Since freewill is inseparable from the idea of freewill, knowledge becomes fundamental to its exercise. Hence, it boils down to how you exercise your right to believe in freewill that actually determines its viability both present and future.  Once realized, freewill is inherently invoked.  Being of process however, it is thereafter sequentially limited by the negative residuals of experience as they assume to form within the field of idea.  Hence, access to the promise of freewill remains dependent upon the realization of the unity of self -- or, by how well one does not limit one’s route of access to it.

If you choose to believe that you have freewill, then you acquire an implied responsibility to understand its constraints and act accordingly.  Anything less confirms the obstruction of oneself by one's self, thereby compromising their freewill. This includes the necessity to adopt the image of Ultimacy promoted by 'certainty,' since it alone allows for freewill's unbridled function.


Romant-c_t.gif (7402 bytes) 

o recap:  Uncertainty dominates linearity since reflection is temporally removed from everything it attempts to qualify -- inclusive of its own reaction to the senses it employs in order to recognize difference.  Hence the only thing of which we can be sure is that we cannot be sure of anything except the actual dynamics inherent to our thought process by which we confirm our uncertainty.  They are limited to being characterized by the idea of 'order within the unknowable.'  No other idea supports the infinite possibility inherent within the idea of uncertainty.  The idea of 'order within the unknowable' is able to do so, because it includes all aspects of possibility short of its own denial -- be they quantitative (successive) or qualitative (simultaneous) in nature.  It accomplishes this feat by successfully characterizing something as nothing.

In order for this idea to gain admission to our understanding, its opposing form must likewise be admitted.  Dichotomy necessitates this acquiescence before any idea can assume to temporal relevance for us.  The opposing form of 'order within the unknowable' is the idea of an 'ordered unknowable.'  It is this idea that then represents nothing as something.

What is unique about all this is that the idea of an 'ordered unknowable' actually exists within the understanding of 'order within the unknowable' (i.e. unknowable -- order -- unknowable).  In fact, they are inseparable from one another, meaning that without the one the other could not be known.  

This is the only example of an idea known to human thought that simultaneously promotes diametrically opposed conclusions without violating the singularity of itself. 

And, it is only possible in this instance, because both formations of thought are limited to characterizing non-delineated possibility.  As a result, this idea is wholly impregnable to any attempt to invalidate it.

This is the first time in the history of human understanding that a necessary bridge between the opposing forms of possibility has ever been demonstrated without violating the mechanism by which it is proposed.  More important, by way of this construct, we can now see the dynamics of beginning itself for the very first time.  And, I am referring here to the beginning of consciousness -- or, that which necessarily demarcates all things which thereafter follow.  Again, all these ideas pertain strictly to the field of thought, since thoughts alone retain an unchangeableness that are linearly verifiable.  On the other hand, everything in the outside world is known (by consciousness) to be forever changing.


Back to Top