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
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
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,
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
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.
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.
Heres 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 (½ and ½) -- 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.
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).
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 ones
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.
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.
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.
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
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
retain an unchangeableness that are linearly verifiable. On the other hand, everything in
the outside world is known (by consciousness) to be forever changing.