I have all the answers

[Beanstalk]

Such hubris! But it's true: my answers may certainly be wrong, but at least I have answers. I have studied philosophy and religion all of my life. My father was a Methodist minister; so, naturally, being an intelligent child, I was an atheist at the age of six when I had a theological crisis. "To Whom does my father think he is praying?" I would ask, in exasperation.

So I spent most of my early years trying to figure out an alternative metaphysics that would not be based upon some arbitrary theological postulate.

What I found eventually filled me with amazement. I discovered that there really is a whole body of ancient knowledge, most of which is still available to anyone who looks for it. THERE ARE MANY, MANY ROADS to these ancient truths! There is not just one hidden answer; the answers are all around you all of the time. All that is needed is a roadmap, a key to all of these mysteries.

So that is what I have tried to do: I have tried to arrange the most important of these ancient mysteries in a logical order. I follow the pattern established by Pythagoras, greatest of the Greek philosophers, outshining Aristotle, Socrates, and even Plato, in my opinion. The Pythagorean Doctrine is the brilliant epiphany that the Numbers of Mathematics, being purely abstract, are the most original Keys to the Mysteries of Nature. That is, each of the Numbers of mathematics correspond to a Mystery of Philosophy. The key to understanding the Mystery, or Arcanum, of any Number is to be found within the meaning of the number itself.

That is, the Number One corresponds to the first and most primary of the Mysteries, Arcana, of philosophy. The Second Arcanum of philosophy is concealed within the Number Two (for example, Yang and Yin). The Third Arcanum is related to the Number Three, a number of magic and change. The Number Four refers to the actual existence of our physical universe. These first four numbers, in a vertical sequence, comprise the ten spheres of the Tree of Life of the Hebrew Kabbalah, and also, in the most compact form, they are the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, revered as the Name of God, and the most abstract of Keys to the Ancient Mysteries.

All of this may sound very confusing and very abstract, but abstraction is the stuff of metaphysics, and the only way it can be understood.

How this foundation of metaphysics will be able to provide all of the answers to any question remains to be demonstrated.

 

[kallipolis]

When you unravel your puzzling, puzzle then drop us a line. Theory is always a fascinating spin when viewed on paper. Then there is the practise.

Gnostic theories have been floating around for thousands of years; and we are still no nearer understanding their significance, beyond their academic challenge for those with plenty of spare time on their hands.

I, and a few of my Greek friends, would challenge your opinion on Pythagoras, had I time to waste.

 

[mbamike]

Sounds very complicated. I prefer something more simple myself.

Whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[Beanstalk]

It is a complex topic and starts out confusing, but gets more clear and more simple as you get into it. It is hard to compress a lifetime of study (based upon thousands of years of evolutionary thought) into a few choice words, but I can suggest a few sources of study.

One of my favorite books is the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. There are many translations, but I enjoy the one by Stephen Mitchell.

I guess I was hoping that if someone wanted to make a serious study of all of this, I would be happy to assist any student with their studies for free.

 

[kallipolis]

It is a complex topic and starts out confusing, but gets more clear and more simple as you get into it. It is hard to compress a lifetime of study (based upon thousands of years of evolutionary thought) into a few choice words, but I can suggest a few sources of study.

One of my favorite books is the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. There are many translations, but I enjoy the one by Stephen Mitchell.

I guess I was hoping that if someone wanted to make a serious study of all of this, I would be happy to assist any student with their studies for free.

Gnostic theories have often been raised on this site over the years that I have been posting here.

When Madonna began her well publicised foray into the world of Kabbalah we were entertained by several posters painstakingly introducing us to the finer points of Kabbalah.

New Agers have also been noticeable by their experiences with New Age healing therapies, such as Reiki and The Metamorphosis Technique.

The natural religion people have reminded us that their religions predate Judaism, and Christianity.

The supporters of Magick occasionally make an appearance.

Taoist thought is invigorating, and instrumental in encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives. Why don't you offer us a few lines with your opinion on the words of Tao Te Ching?

Knowing others is wisdom;Knowing the self is enlightenment.Mastering others requires force;Mastering the self requires strength;He who knows he has enough is rich.Perseverance is a sign of will power.He who stays where he is endures.To die but not to perish is to be eternally present.

 

[Beanstalk]

OK - here is a discussion based on the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. Caution: this is some of the most complex stuff, but I think it is pretty interesting:

Let me present one of my favorite analogies to occult metaphysics: the origin of the Cosmos ex nihilo as a consequence of God laughing at His original Joke: the Distinction between Zero and Infinity. First, I quote from the beginning of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu (D. C. Lau translation):

“The Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way; the Name that can be named is not the constant Name. The nameless was the beginning of Heaven and Earth; the named was the mother of the myriad creatures. Hence always rid yourself of desires in order to observe its Secrets, but always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its Manifestations. These two are the same, but diverge in Name as they issue forth. Being the same, they are called Mysteries. Mystery upon Mystery, the gateway of the manifold secrets.”

In order to understand how the Universe was created, it is necessary to have an understanding of the fundamental nature of Reality. We start with the Perfection of God, at rest, at a Point at the Center. The whole concept is meaningless, of course, until it is contrasted with the concept of Error, or movement away from the Center. This corresponds with old notions of the Devil as distance from God, moving away from the Perfection at the Center. Now, in order to maintain the existence of any deviation from the Center of Perfection, an alternate and complimentary deviation in another direction must be simultaneously sustained. There it is in a nutshell, the whole secret to the existence of the Manifest Cosmos as a Knot in the Æther composed of an intricate Field of Vibration of opposing concepts which, taken altogether suggests the illusion of our visible world. All of the energy of the Cosmos taken together adds up to Zero (or Infinity).

“Zero” and “Infinity” are examples of a Distinction created out of an undifferentiated sameness through the process of applying divergent names. Zero and Infinity both represent absolute states which can not even be imagined precisely, since they are beyond the consciousness of finite man. They seem to represent two different concepts only because we can only conceive of them at all by means of a process of movement between them. We can imagine a very large sphere which we expand mentally until our impoverished imagination fails us; likewise, we can imagine a dot vanishing towards nothing. But at the approach to the limit in each case, the last to go is nothing but location: the point where the dot is vanishing, or the center of the sphere which is trying to become all-encompassing. So there is the Joke: you establish two Names which are really the same thing at the Limit, but then by alternating between them you set up a Field of Vibration which presents the Illusion of finite Manifestation (“the Gateway of the manifold Secrets”)! Hilarious. So when God made this Joke, the vibration alternating between “Zero” and “Infinity” was the Laughter of God which created the finite Universe.

 

[sabot3ur]

Order, and disorder.

I feel like the more answers you find the more unanswered there are discovered.

 

[FirmaFan]

Such hubris! But it's true: my answers may certainly be wrong, but at least I have answers.

Um, just having unsubstantiated answers is not better than admitting to not having answers. If it is unknown whether your answers are correct or not, what good are the answers you have? Not having answers motivates us to seek out those answers, but saying "my answers may certainly be wrong, but at least I have answers." is intellectual suicide. What motivation is there to determine the truth or investigate further if you are content with "at least I have answers"? If your goal is to just have an answer, instead of having the correct answer, what good is anything you say? It has been said that reaching a conclusion is the point at which you stop thinking, but it appears as though the point you stop thinking is not when you reach a conclusion, but when you reach anything that can simply be labeled as a conclusion.

--"What is the cure for cancer?"
--"Scrambled eggs."
--"That doesn't seem right."
--"My answer may be wrong, but at least I have an answer."

 

[zoltanspawn]

^You're too tough on unsubstantiated answers.

How did the leopard get her spots? This question invites answers of at least two sorts: those that need substantiation and those that don't. But both answers are intellectually interesting and not "suicide."

It's unclear to me whether the OP is discussing a metaphysics which does not require substantiation or the sort you're asking for. That is, the nature of answers themselves seems undetermined.

Anyway, aren't unsubstantiated answers actually even a normal part of science? Something that kind of inhabits a ground between question and answer frequently talked about as hypothesis? (An unproven question or unsubstantiated answer!!) Is not the question of whether or not scrambled eggs are therapeutic for cancer a legitimate and testable proposition?

 

[FirmaFan]

^You're too tough on unsubstantiated answers.

It is my desire to be as absolutely sure about the truth of the subjects to which I know and understand. That makes unsubstantiated claims very undesirable and very deserving of harsh criticism.

How did the leopard get her spots? This question invites answers of at least two sorts: those that need substantiation and those that don't. But both answers are intellectually interesting and not "suicide."

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Your question about the leopard is valid and does require an answer, but I do not find an unsubstantiated answer intellectually interesting, I find it lazy, dishonest, and intellectually damaging. If you can not substantiate an explanation, what good is the explanation? How does it further our knowledge and understanding about subjects such as leopard spots?

It's unclear to me whether the OP is discussing a metaphysics which does not require substantiation or the sort you're asking for. That is, the nature of answers themselves seems undetermined.

A subject which makes claims that do not require substantiation and evidence is not a subject worth believing. If you can't even verify claims as true or false, the subject provides us with NOTHING.

Anyway, aren't unsubstantiated answers actually even a normal part of science?

Nope, and science is quite frank about what is not known. They do not stick some kind of explanation made from whole cloth as a placeholder simply because having an answer makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. Unknowns in science are just that...unknowns, and they remain that way until evidence can be provided to support an explanation.

Something that kind of inhabits a ground between question and answer frequently talked about as hypothesis? (An unproven question or unsubstantiated answer!!)

A hypothesis is definitely not an unsubstantiated answer, as it does not answer anything. I wouldn't call it an unproven question either. A hypothesis is better described as an educated prediction of the outcome of a controlled experiment(s) based upon previously known facts and/or models.

Is not the question of whether or not scrambled eggs are therapeutic for cancer a legitimate and testable proposition?

Of course it's a testable proposition. The point made wasn't that the answer can be tested, the point was criticizing being satisfied with having an answer, whatever that answer may be, regardless of whether that answer holds any validity. You can make up any answer you want to any question that can be conceived. Simply having an answer without validation is not a virtue, and it definitely isn't a better alternative to having no answer at all.

 

[Beanstalk]

"I always have to explain my jokes or else everyone thinks I say the dumbest things."

Actually, I not only believe that my answers are correct, but that they are the only answers which will create a consistent metaphysics. But I should have expected this kind of response -- some of these questions are among the most difficult every posed, so trying to solve them in brief windows like this is kind of useless. I just felt that I wanted to make an effort, just in case there were someone who wanted to investigate. I haven't the slightest attachment to whether or not anyone is interested in my answers, and I may not bother to review this thread much -- it is probably the dumbest place to introduce such a discussion.
If no one notices the importance of the sequence of numbers as illustrating the principle mysteries of nature, then we can just pass the bong, or the beer -- I don't care.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It is my desire to be as absolutely sure about the truth of the subjects to which I know and understand. That makes unsubstantiated claims very undesirable and very deserving of harsh criticism.

It may be worth drawing a distinction between answers and claims. I don't think every reply to a question is meant or expected to be a statement of literal truth. Wouldn't it be a bit of a strange world if every answer was meant as an expression of fact? Especially in the realm of metaphysics...though I have a bit of a hunch you wouldn't mind terribly if that realm simply disappeared.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Your question about the leopard is valid and does require an answer, but I do not find an unsubstantiated answer intellectually interesting, I find it lazy, dishonest, and intellectually damaging. If you can not substantiate an explanation, what good is the explanation? How does it further our knowledge and understanding about subjects such as leopard spots?

How did the leopard get her spots? She ate a swarm of bumblebees that was attacking Cairo! (Talk about a shitty etiology.) What I'm trying to say is that some answers, even some metaphysical answers, might not be trying to be inept science, but rather may be trying to make a human feel something, or express a moral intuition, or possibly exert political control over the stupid, so on and so forth. But these sorts of unsubstantiated answers are the very stuff of being human...in almost every arena humans play in. It's interesting and it's creative.

A subject which makes claims that do not require substantiation and evidence is not a subject worth believing. If you can't even verify claims as true or false, the subject provides us with NOTHING.

I pretty much agree regarding factual claims.

Nope, and science is quite frank about what is not known. They do not stick some kind of explanation made from whole cloth as a placeholder simply because having an answer makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. Unknowns in science are just that...unknowns, and they remain that way until evidence can be provided to support an explanation.

A hypothesis is definitely not an unsubstantiated answer, as it does not answer anything. I wouldn't call it an unproven question either. A hypothesis is better described as an educated prediction of the outcome of a controlled experiment(s) based upon previously known facts and/or models.

Question: What will happen when we mix baking soda and vinegar?
Answer: It will turn blue. (This is what I'm calling a hypothesis.)
*performs test*
Claim: Actually, it foams.

I think a hypothesis IS an unsubstantiated answer. A hypothesis is a guess. A hypothesis is speculation. Yes, a hypothesis is an educated prediction.

Of course it's a testable proposition. The point made wasn't that the answer can be tested, the point was criticizing being satisfied with having an answer, whatever that answer may be, regardless of whether that answer holds any validity. You can make up any answer you want to any question that can be conceived. Simply having an answer without validation is not a virtue, and it definitely isn't a better alternative to having no answer at all.

Now, having made my miniature defense of guesswork etc. I see the hubris of our friend Beanstalk was probably deserving of your critique, whatever being "correct" about metaphysics may mean. Having departed this dumbest place, though, we may never know with certainty if he considered his answers to be factual claims or something else!

 

[Beanstalk]

I noticed these paragraphs among my writings, and I find them relevant not only here, but wherever interesting ideas may be presented:

I have read lots of very obscure treatises on many arcane subjects, and at first I would read with my blue pencil, arrogantly marking the author’s errors as I found them. I have always known, since the days of my high school debating society, that it is far easier (and usually more fun) to take the Negative position in an argument. We learn very early on that to ridicule your opponent (or his arguments; take your pick) is usually a more effective strategy than to rely purely upon reason. I think the English are usually much better at this than Americans. I remember reading some articles by Bertrand Russell which I found very funny; it was very amusing to watch him shred up his opponents (well, usually he would confine his attention to his opponents’ arguments; I must do him that justice). But much later on in my studies I began to realize that many authors may have had some interesting idea after all, even though the language they may have used to express it might have been faulty. I underwent a major shift in my reading style – instead of simply considering the words themselves, which anyone of Russell’s experience and talent could easily shred into nonsense, I began to “read between the lines” and tried to discover what reasonable or interesting idea the author might have had that he was trying to express with his inadequate words. In this way, I discovered quite a few very interesting ideas which Lord Russell would never have noticed.

 

[FirmaFan]

Question: What will happen when we mix baking soda and vinegar?
Answer: It will turn blue. (This is what I'm calling a hypothesis.)
*performs test*
Claim: Actually, it foams.

I think we are simply on different ideas semantically on what can be defined as an "answer". It is incorrect to equate a "hypothesis" with an "answer". In the example you gave, I would definitely not call "it will turn blue" an "answer" and would be hesitant to label it "hypothesis" either. I think the word you would be best using to reconcile this would be "response". "It will turn blue" is a response to the question.

 

[Beanstalk]

Getting back to some of the Ideas that interest me, the questions about the Nature and Meaning of God are about as primary as you can get:

I have an image of God, which is only that: an image. Do not try to define it too closely -- it is just designed to let your own mind take it further and cross the bridge to actually seeing the idea behind it.

Just imagine a large sphere, with "God" as the point of Perfection, at rest, at the Center.

All movement away from that point, in any direction (infinite) goes out into the direction of Novelty, Complexity, Error, Confusion, and Chaos, which deviations from the perfection of God are infinite. (While the Perfection of God is Unitary, at the Point.)

This, however, is a fairly static picture of God as the Ultimate Yin. But there is another idea of God, too: the Outward, Yang energy that makes the original movement out into Manifestation ("Error"). This is sometimes called "Life"

The dynamic interplay between these ideas is what created the Cosmos in the first place, and what keeps it continually evolving and changing.

Another idea (a variation of the same one) is to imagine that an understanding of God can be apprehended as the resolution of the paradox of the Irresistible Force (Yang) and the Immovable Object (Yin). Both concepts refer to an aspect of God.

The application of the number Three is no accident: of course there has to be a Trinity before you can encompass the fullness of the idea of God. (Just review my earlier post in which I listed the Primary Arcana as illustrated by the Sequence of Numbers.) --

In addition, and transcending the concepts of Yang and Yin, there is the "Holy Ghost," which may be understood as the Infinite Mind of God, Gaia, Collective Unconscious. That is where your prayers go.

By the way, it is perfectly possible to imagine all of this within the context of Atheism! It really doesn't make any difference at all, if you choose to consider that "God" has no meaning. "Time" has no meaning, and neither does "Money," so you can even understand all of these ideas perfectly well in some other abstract sense -- it doesn't matter if it ends up meaning the same thing as what some of us mean by "God."

 

[kallipolis]

^Were we to imagine God, or the creator as an object of theoretical reasoning, we are in effect creating an abstraction born out of our imagination.

For many of us God actively participates in our life, when we choose to answer his call, to follow him. When we do, we soon learn that God is not the product of our imagination.

I also appreciate mind expanding, gymnastics.