The concept of the absolute, its components and their correlations

Author: Vladimir Tonkov

Date: 29.03.2010

Translated from Russian by Ivan Gesse and Dinara Yaburova

The Absolute.

There are a great number of popular notions in society today that imply much but mean little in the form of use being offered to the conversation partner. Such a most serious philosophical and world view category as the ‘absolute’ is one such notion that is ‘guilty without guilt’.

Today the notion of the ‘absolute’ is used by just about everyone, except perhaps an infant, and at that this is merely due to its scrambled speech. What does this notion mean and is it worthwhile to understand it? It so happens that everyone tries to use this category, but it can be rather difficult to understand what they are hinting at while using it because…

It is specifically this ‘because’ that we will talk about below…
The absolute is a factual designation of the aggregate unconditionally full volume of the world substance in any form, kind, expression and display without exception.

Thus the idea of the ‘absolute’ includes all substance – thinkable and unthinkable material, immaterial and simply abstract, i.e. that which we can barely imagine. That which does not exist but can be imagined by us or by someone else, presented in the form of possibilities of different character or which is able to independently reveal itself in a certain way that is independent of ours, or perhaps someone else’s understanding, undoubtedly falls under the same description.

If more accurately, understandably and offensively, the Absolute in its logical exposition literally means ‘Absolutely EVERYTHING’.

And God as well…

Origins of the notion. Creation of the Universe.

According to philosophical and world view traditions of various occult-mystical areas, whose representatives are religions, esoteric schools, and tribal priestly belief systems, there is frequently denoted the probable and sometimes undoubtable existence of a certain ‘pre-being’ that has existed in immaterial space in special conditions of ‘nonexistence – existence’.

Can this ‘pre-being – creator’ be classified as part of the category of the ‘absolute’ itself? According to the notion of the ‘absolute’ and what is included into it – undoubtedly. If really nothing except for it existed at that moment. But! undoubtedly and without discussing.

Not everybody agrees with this position of including the ‘pre-being – creator’ into the total volume of the notion of the ‘absolute’, motivating their disagreement by different reasons. The content of this disagreement can be understood from what is given below.

According to their presumptions, the universe as a certain most broad area of existence is engendered by the life activity of a certain ‘pre-being’. In different traditions this pre-being has different names, but always has at its disposal the absolute power over realization of the processes of existence and nonexistence, life and ‘nonlife’ on a universal scale. In Christianity, Islam and Judaism traditions this is the God-creator, in Buddhism this is Brahman.

The ‘pre-being’ becomes a creator at the moment of a certain ‘awakening’, and Buddhism traditions talk about the cyclical nature of this process that is expressed in that creature’s ‘inhalations – exhalations’; other traditions prefer to talk about a single act of creation that perhaps is not repeated or renewed from the outset. What exactly causes the process of this ‘awakening’ nobody distinctly explains, evidently appealing to the listener’s fantasy.

Particularly anxious individuals insist that since before the process of creation of space-time interconnections by the ‘pre-being – creator’ nothing existed, then the reference point of the ‘absolute’ cannot include it.

There is actually nothing to argue about here. The notion of the ‘absolute’ is such that whatever the motivation behind the attempt of extracting something from the total volume of the notion of the ‘absolute’, whether due to excessive respect for something or for some other unknown reasons, the fact is unavoidable: if there is something, then it is already included into the absolute. Irrespective of the condition, form, motivation and character of existence.

Undoubtedly we can use a cunning combination of notions from early childhood such as “it exists, but that doesn’t count”, sort of as if “the ‘pre-being – creator’ doesn’t count”, though actually everything in general is clear indeed…

Sometimes an attempt to solve the situation above using the method of conditional division is made by ‘especially talented persons’. One is to consider that matter is the ‘universe matter’, in other words it is the ‘absolute’; and ‘above it’, from unattainable heights beyond the clouds, a ‘universal mind’ is gazing, and one is then to consider this to be the ‘God-creator’.

The attempt may itself be okay, but nothing more than an attempt, because even a pure mind needs a certain material carrier, a special fine material or, if you will, – ‘other-material’, but inevitably an energy-circulating or an information-transforming material. It is possible to withdraw from this state of affairs only in the manner of conversation proposed earlier, i.e. “let’s consider it incomprehensible”…

Incomprehensible – yes, why not. It is impossible to dispute this, and it is even more than that. But it is exactly the ‘creator – pre-being’ himself, he himself specifically, irrespective of what or who he is, that ‘tells’ about himself by means of the consequences of his activity.

Whether it is a ‘creator – pre-being’, or simply impersonal nature, but the fact is that inevitably, while giving birth to certain consequences of the initial cause of origin of the universe, this ‘initial cause factor’ could put into the universe only that which it is, in other words, ‘god created the world in his image and likeness’ or ‘nature could only give what it consists of’. The rest are versions within the range of these given conditions…

Thus we inevitably have to face at least two variants of extreme ideas about the creation of the universe:
– personal-volitional, and
– initially natural.

Personal-volitional.

The personal-volitional variant of creation of the universe assumes that a special form of personal influence – the ‘will’ – interferes in the existence of the ‘non-existence’. The only type of creature capable of influencing in such a way would be one that has a highly organized personal structure, whether a special form of psychical, fine-physiological or other-material-physiological, but in any event a highly organized and rather complicated one. In other cases we will not be able to consider such a process to be a volitional process, but sooner will be inclined to suspect rather shaky grounds under rather honest explanations.

The high self-discipline of this ‘pre-being – creator’ and other notions about it are confirmed: ascribed to him are the properties that are called the ‘highest reason, ‘highest justice’, ‘highest mercy’ and other words that have a clear indication of a high psychical organization of those to whom these words and notions are attributed.
Initially natural.

The initially natural variant is more understandable for the contemporary person and that is why we use it more often in everyday life. The essence of this variant of the universe’s development can be stated rather briefly: when in use, matter of the universe passes through multiple-variant transformation, organizing or uniting into special complex molecular compounds – most frequently in a random way.

Some of the multi-molecular compounds are rather resistant to the destruction that constantly pursues them. Thereby these compounds begin to accumulate a multi variance of their existence. As a result there appear bio-crystals reacting to environmental conditions, which personify protein-nucleic forms of life with their inherent psychic processes.

As for the first variant of creation of the universe a fair question arises: how did this highly disciplined pre-being, that in the future will be able to create and judge, appear from nowhere? As for the second variant of creation of the universe another question arises: how and from where did the matter which is subjected to transformations by the method of self-transformation, initially appear? And why does it actually self-transform?

If one were to think, in essence the duality of the Universe’s coming to be is very much deceptive, since it is known from the outset that the highly organized ‘something’, whether it is a thinking matter or a reflexing being, does not appear by itself. Anything could happen, but not this. So as a result, if this being created this universe through methods absolutely unthinkable, yet methods of the ‘likeness and constants of its existence’, then this ‘pre-being – creator’ formed and ‘highly organized’:
-either not here and not now,
-or, while being initially the first reaction of matter, became developed and psychically more complicated in the process of combined parallel development with the world that the being itself created.

Considering the first variant, it is impossible to get rid of the usual labeling that the areas from which the creator could appear due the reasons above are part of the Absolute. Furthermore, in this case the primacy of his creative abilities is lost and the creator becomes one of the elements of creation of the world, rather than the original cause of the creation.

Talking about the second variant, one should be satisfied with the fact that Buddhists and Hindus have rather effectively solved this problem: in their world-view-philosophical reasoning they conceded that the highest being performs a cyclical process of ‘awakening and falling into slumber’, that is at every creation and completion of a universe – from among a great amount of such – this creature organizes itself in a bit higher order… The Hindus have thought up a good religion…

Naturally, with the next ‘awakening’ such ‘creator’ creates a universe that is a bit higher organized, bringing the entire universe to a bright future step by step. Naturally it ends every time the creator wishes to have a nap… Though for honor’s sake we should add that the Hindus have the opposite situation, because our existence is actually the creator’s dream…

There is of course also the third variant, being a variety of the first one. Something that travelled its path of psychical self-organization took up a position and declared its initiality. But this variant is beyond our topic and moreover has already taken part in our discussion above.
So it turns out interesting…

Provided that in our discussion we accept the position of creation of the world, where the organizing link is the pre-being’s personality, then the human highest psychical reactions and wonder-working processes are the essence of a part of the pre-being – creator’s presence in each one of us. A presence that is a concrete, accurate and controlling one, implemented either directly or due to multistep or multistage transformations – through beings of earlier creation: angels, archangels, thrones and so on – if speaking in Judaic or Christian.

You will not find clear explanations concerning this, except for revelations of ‘psychics from religion’, and if you do find, then it will be explanations either very understandable but far from the actual state of affairs, or complicated and extremely hazy sendings to wherever one chooses, with all the details resulting from this.

If we take the position of the world-creation in a natural way, we will come to the conclusion that the highest human psychical abilities, including ‘miracle-working’ ones are the result of natural biochemical processes. In this case we should look for clear explanations in scientific publications and academic organizations. As experience shows, notions about scientific cognition of world creation fundamentally change approximately twice or three times per century. At best.

A summary of everything described above is that it is not necessary to be a staunch supporter of one of the forms of world creation or of psychical development. The process of world creation is more likely a complicated step-by-step action that sometimes is subject to someone’s will and sometimes the contrary – forcing upon someone’s will. And the process of psyche formation should not be considered as a single type of process: more probably it is a multi-directional one both from the aspect of ‘fine-material’ or ‘other-material’ substance present in a person, and from the aspect of energy-material body transformations into special forms of psychical formations.

Since the ‘absolute’ as a ‘worldwide substance’ is a full generality of absolutely all effects-phenomena and their other probable components, however displayed or potentially present, as well as their other probable components, then it is absolutely understandable that any creature, be it is god or a person, is included into it from the outset. Thus at any consideration of the world we are not dealing with the absolute, but with a separate part of it, a rather big or little one – depending on our choice and interest.

The notions of ‘God’ and the ‘absolute’ are notions that mean absolutely different phenomena, which people who claim a philosophical world-view unfortunately often do not realize. ‘God’, proceeding from characteristics and qualities in form of attributes given to it, is something with a personality that has its own attitude towards things, beings, properties and principles. The ‘absolute’ in contrast to ‘God’ does not possess these reactions and represents a personification of ‘chaos’ which under the influence of ‘God’s’ ‘will’ on it acquires a certain order called ‘life’.

Thus, by philosophical tradition, man is capable of being in front of ‘God’, feeling an actual remainder of the ‘absolute’, after deducting minimum two values from the ‘absolute’:
– himself, that is man;
– ‘God’ itself.

Thus we have a part of the ‘absolute’ that in everyday life is called the ‘surroundings’ or ‘world’. In this world man is opposite of God as pertains to the part of the absolute that remained after deducting them from it, i.e. from the absolute.
The ‘surroundings’ and ‘world’ firstly include:
– everything –‘ not me and not God’,
– then everything ‘not evidently animated’,
– then ‘evidently not animated’,
– and after that the ‘evidently not evident’ that is ‘existing but absent in my perception.’

Absence of them in the perception can occur either for ‘spatial reasons’ or ‘time reasons’ or in other words ‘other spatial reasons’. Undoubtedly, further reasons can be also added into this list.