05-13-2015, 05:38 PM
(05-12-2015, 08:22 PM)Minyatur Wrote: I don't know if this is relevent but by reading the text, it came to my mind that the LOO is more about existence itself than what is to be done with this existence.
ie. The law does not dictate anything, it is what permits existence to be within a whole or rather the whole to exist as something. The rest is pure driven chaos through time.
The LOO 4 book series is a masterful transcript of Q&A sessions and was never meant to be a philosophical treatise. There are a lot of great parts that can be used to make a philosophical treatise and clues as to how to make principles and forms of existence derivable.
Looking up the word dictate -- as a verb, to dictate means to prescribe or order and a decreed law most likely does this. As a noun, a dictate is an authoritative rule or a guiding principle which many metaphysical laws claim.
How about the Principle of One instead of Law of One? LOO researchers still need to determine what type of monism it is. Read about it on Wikipedia.
==================================================
Summarizing from the last LOO seminar:
Define 'law' or 'way' as it is used here. Is it a decree or governmental dictate? Or is it more like a discovered physical law ie the law of gravity which is considered a 'persistent regularity'.
There is a need to disambiguate and clarify this notion of 'law'.
The term law may no longer be ambiguous.
It appears that the term law as used by the LOO is an absolute law decreed or imposed by an absolute authority. This may imply that appealing to this authority is the same as appealing to ourselves on some deep level. At some level of determinism we and all entities have been determined or chosen which translates to being loved which introduces the logos theme.
Since LOO is immutable it is not a mutable natural law or law of nature which comes into being as a persistent regularity and not decreed or imposed.
So to be clear and precise its the Absolute Law of One or ALOO to distinguish from the relative and mutable natural laws ie the Relative Law of Gravity.
The term principle can also be described as absolute and relative and has a less dictatorial connotation than the term law. So the IUP is an absolute principle and its LoA and LOO are absolute laws in a dialectical monism.
LOO supporters should also make the point to call it the ALOO to distinguish from all the many other kinds of monisms. A monism is a oneness theory -- a Law of One. So, to someone who claims that their monism is the only true monism it is elevated to being the Absolute Law of One. Spinoza's ALOO, Plato's ALOO, Ra's ALOO, etc.
So that's why is it so important that the LOO researchers describe in detail the type and characteristics of Ra's monism since that is what Ra is asserting.
My version of the IUP asserts dialectical monism or DM and so, is more fully expressed as the IUP/DM.
===================================================
Now to cover what the term one means in the LOO. Still in dialogue mode with the seminar presenting the LOO philosophy. This dialogue is like LOO teacher bootcamp and is good preparation. It's a bit unfair to Minyatur who doesn't have the chance to respond to the grads but this is strictly fictional and a good exercise toward developing material for a curriculum.
The term one in the LOO denotes that all things are ever One and are always working as One.
The grads are back in the room after the false alarm and are riled up...
What is your notion of One? Is it the Parmenidean One or the Heraclitan One or the Platonic One or some Zen Buddhist One? Please clarify and specify your notion of One.
Oneness is a monistic theory so what is your specific type of monism? What are it's characteristics? A static monism or a dynamic monism? Of one unique substance/reality ie Existence Monism or of a unified duality of substance/reality ie Dialectical Monism or of a unified triality of substance/reality ie the Holy Trinity?
Is your monism of a theistic or atheistic kind? If theistic then of what kind of theism or deism?
All things emerge from the same source or essence and work through many paths toward the One same thing.
There appears a distinction between source and essence.
We refer to the definition in Wikipedia:
There are two sorts of definitions for monism:
1. The wide definition: a philosophy is monistic if it postulates unity of origin of all things; all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them.
2. The restricted definition: this requires not only unity of origin but also unity of substance and essence.
You assert many paths but is not the Way of One or Path of One a single path? Are you now asserting sub-paths of some undefined kind, or is it now the Ways of One or the Paths of One? This would then imply the Laws of One.
My take: Philosophy students and professors, especially the logical and analytic type, are notorious for critiquing our language and its usage. There is a value to this because they do keep us honest with how we convey our thoughts. I would assume that even if conveyed telepathically there would be mental distortions that would cause miscommunication -- so the clear verbalization of thought leads to clear telepathic communication.
Even that which seem to be working against each other is in fact working together as the One. It connotes that there is never disharmony and that unity is ever present always.
The grads react emotionally but then collect themselves...
We ask the following -- is the torturer and the tortured working together as the One? If so, how does the LOO specifically explain this 'working together' process? We don't want to hear generalities or platitudes. Please explain in concrete detail the principles and conditions of the LOO and their application in a step by step manner, to how a torturer and tortured scenario reflects harmony and oneness.
This is where the IUP claims a will/love/light of the Creator rather than just the love/light of the Creator. It makes no sense to leave out the 1st distortion of free will. A complete will/love/light dynamic can better elucidate the intricacies of karma.
That even if we are systems within systems, there is ultimately One system englobing all and that this system is the source of all sub-systems.
Are there an infinity or finity of sub-systems within this ultimate system? A finity allows for a clearly defined origin and boundary of the ultimate system. An infinity has no definable source or boundary of this ultimate system -- in other words, it is unknown whether there is a clearly defined origin or boundary. How do you really know it is infinite?
This is similar to not knowing if there is a boundary to the physical universe since our Hubble telescope can only reach out approx 40 billion light years.
The Cantor Set and Mandelbrot Set are systems with a seed and a generator to express the set. So the seed-generator dynamic may be a good analogy of an ultimate system.