The NeoPlatonism Blog

Inherency - the basis for Modern NeoPlatonic Thought

1) Begin with evidence a) how the universe functions as a series of dualities - matter and antimatter, energy and matter, quantum energy and gravity b) how self-referential dualisms are required as mathematical descriptors of the physical universe - real and imaginary numbers, conjugate and complex conjugate and c) how symmetry is at the heart of physical laws and events of the universe - active symmetry is basically a direction that points to everywhere or to nowhere, another implied duality.

2) Infer by retrodiction. Taking the universe's origin at face value, we can run the clock backward to a unity of laws and forces. Essentially what we are doing in such unification models (Big Bang/particle accelerator physics and GUTs, i.e. Grand Unified Theories) is unifying orders of dualities. By extrapolation, we can therefore infer a unification of dualities at origin which implies an underlying nondualism behind the universe's laws, forms, and functions.

3) Attribution. Conceptually, we can then consider an absolute nondual state as origin and infer some basic attributes to its breaking into dualities. These "meta" attributes are to be conceived without external reference, can neither have position nor motion nor direction, but are directly self-referential to an absolute state. Three pairs of self-reference are allowable within this context: Presence/Absence - Everywhere/Nowhere - Always/Never. [Existence, position, duration.] Why? Because as an undivided state, any of these attributes can be equally exchanged for the other. For example as a thought experiment, conceive of a point appearing within an absolute void. Is it a point of presence or a point of absence? Without an external reference, they are the same definition. Is the point everywhere or nowhere? Without an external reference, everywhere and nowhere are the same definition. In other words, infinite extent and infinite nonextent are meaningless distinctions without an outside reference. Is the point's duration always or never? Without an external reference, again they are the same definition. Eternity is a state in which always and never are identical.

4) Force implications. The basic attributes of a nondual state breaking into dualities are expressed at the core of the functioning universe. For a physical universe "derived" from underlying nonduality, determinations themselves must give away their secret origin for they must continually approximate the absolute as a self-reference of origin -- though because they are dual they can never reach it. This inherent approximation produces the basic forces of the universe. How does this occur?  A) In quantum mechanics, a particle is in a mixed state of existence/nonexistence (presence/absence) until it is observed/determined by an outside observer. The particle's presence is then determined "here" against its absence all elsewhere in the universe. B) The wavefuntion, light, and energy are approximations toward nondual origin as absolute "everywhere." They propagate symmetrically toward everywhere from a determined state and are extrinsically directional. Mass and gravity approximate nondual origin as absolute "nowhere" and are intrinsically directional. Just as light and the quantum wavefunction "point" to all directions at once as they propagate outward, gravity and mass "point" inward from all directions at once. The result can be seen in stars and planetary bodies as they form spheres. Their reference to absolute "nowhere" is most explicitly illustrated in the gravitational extreme of a singularity, a point at which for all practical purposes space and time end at nowhere/nowhen.

5) Time. Time is a transaction between everywhere and nowhere. If we consider that the wavefunction is everywhere-seeking and the mass of the subject is nowhere-seeking, we can illustrate a simple arrow of time for the transaction between subject (S) and object (O).

<<<<O>>>>>

     >>>>>S<<<<<

----->>>>> arrow of time

6) Inherency. Because the split into relational dualities and the approximation of origin as infinite nowhere or infinite everywhere are necessary for a system derived from nonduality and are the only possible stable derivations from nonduality, the constants of the universe are inherently derived and are not a statistical fluke. All dualities must self-define and therefore be transformational along an axis. Unpaired dualities as might be expected in a statistical model cannot be realized. Matter and anti-matter, for instance, will always be opposites. Energy and matter will always translate.

7) What does this mean? Too much to tackle tonight... Suffice to say for now that "nondual origin" equates with "The One" of Plotinus, "Being" in the philosophical sense in conjunction with "Becoming," and perhaps even "God" in some very qualified meanings of the term.

Suffice to say for now that the problem of description for the neo-Platonic 'One' is similar to the problem of description/evidence for the Big Bang singularity. The 'One' properly understood is not monism (despite the monistic errors of the later neo-Platonists). It is an absolute non-separation or unity of dualisms and symmetries which creates a descriptive problem because dualism is requirement of description. Like the Big Bang singularity, it can't be got at; it can only be inferred from what follows, from what inherently unfolds from its absolute. 

I see this inherent unfolding as identical to t=0, origin, and origin to me is the real 'God' question. As this unfolding occurs without intent (intent requires subject-object separation making it unavailable at nonduality, i.e. outside of time and the universe), this sense of 'God' is not the usual western creator god. It's something else, and therefore requires very careful qualifications whenever the 'God question' is raised. As best I can say it, it is more akin to identity, not in the sense of 'I am God' for this is the same error assigned to the subjective creator god, but takes the form more of an insight, an awareness, an empathic identity with all of the unfolding.

*************************************************************************

The "God question" is a tough one to tackle. Too much gets lost or misunderstood in the semantics -- what one means by the term 'God' is too easily heard and mistaken for how another person has pre-defined its meaning. I prefer to bracket the question in terms of *origin* and within the philosophical contemplation of Being versus Becoming. In this sense, 'God' as origin is very much a cosmological argument.

Most people, at least in the west, also insist that 'God' as origin contains the quality of active intent; that is, their idea of God is one who acts as a subjective force on and/or within the universe. That idea leads directly to a personified creator God, a designer, a God who is involved in reward and punishment. For me, a "creator" God is a contradiction in two senses. 

Firstly, it implies the application of physical intent *within* the universe. If that is so, such active intent must be part of the physical universe (because it acts upon it) and therefore be observable and measureable. We should be able to observe such a force in action and resolve its origin. And yet there are no "miracle" particles that show up in a particle accelerator. There are no miracle particles that manifest themselves into being grip an object, lift it, change it, destroy it. There are no anomalous common forces that suddenly alter their actions and tip the presence of their hidden generator and intendor. An intelligible universe does not mask the hand of a subjective God.

Secondly, intent *outside* of the creation of the universe directly implies intent before the origin of the universe and a subjective God who exists outside of time. Intent, however, is a time-dependent relationship between subject and object. Intent is an active thought directed from a subjective mind to the object of its desire. The two are necessarily separated in space and therefore separated in time. Intent cannot exist outside of or before the universe because time is an effect of the universe's dualism. Time is a function of the universe. Once one hits t=0 (time=zero) there is no separation between subject and object, no time, and therefore no thought of intent possible. Subjective creator God as a concept can be eliminated.

So we are left with an uncreated origin and ask what insight this might give us regarding the 'God Question.' There is another possibility. What if rather than subjective intent acting upon something, we think in terms of origin unfolding from completeness? Would you call it 'God' if origin did not involve intent but was an *inherent* process, and origin that was necessary rather than invoked?

I consider myself something akin to a neo-Platonist. I arrive at this philosophical position through observation. The physical universe is comprised of sets of dualisms and symmetries both within its fundamental physics and within the mathematics used to describe its particles, forces, and interactions.