Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Surjectivity and Superjectivity

Surjectivity and Superjectivity

Ratings: (0)|Views: 163|Likes:
Published by Randolph Dible

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Randolph Dible on Apr 03, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
SURJECTIVITY AND SUPERJECTIVITYThe Surjective Perspective of Omnific Awareness Compared to the Superjective Perspective of the Absolute Infinite: James Corrigan’s Philosophy Compared to Randy Dible’s PhilosophyAs interpreted by Randy Dible30 Miramar Avenue, East Patchogue, NY 11772
 The fact that James Corrigan and I are not yet done with our schooling further exemplifies our malleability in the flux of reality, which we seek to describe, yet we have bothdeveloped convictions about things to stand on (metaphysical systematics, shoulders of giants) tosee the bigger picture of generalities and ultimate reality, and about what things will be stable,and what will lead to our greater eventual fall. I will refer to this metaphor of ‘things to stand on’ by the term ‘metaphysical system’.Convictions are a hard thing to shake. We must bear in mind Peirce’s dictum “
Do notblock the road to inquiry.
Simultaneously, we have to get our bearings,
 some
bearings,
 some
 parameters, with which to navigate the course to our destination. And yet!
at the same time
, wemust recognize why it is that we seek to navigate at all; where we plan on going, and of whatsignificance our expressions about the way could be, in light of the fact that ultimate reality isalways already, and ever-present. So there is another metaphorical situation of people, philosophers, trying to stand, and build, to reach the Heavens, to reach God, but encountering thediminishing foundational problem (at least it’s diminishing), and the inaccessibility problem(called ‘aporia:’ the inaccessibility of the transcendent).James Corrigan and I have solutions to this, by adopting the school of thought called thePerennial Philosophy, generally associated with non-dualism, and James Corrigan is a non-dualist. I wonder if he would paradoxically also be a non-monist, and non-pluralist,simultaneously (at the
 same time
); I feel that this position, although logically paradoxical, is far superior. But even superior to that, may in fact be far simpler. One can insist that one is not an‘-ist’ or ‘-ism’, which would indeed be true, but would that qualify as a metaphysical system?
 
Perhaps it would if one were insistent. So I insist, to assume the existence of this system of transcending the all-embracing identity, separate from the position of negative identity, but this isno position at all! At there we would be left with nothing, purely and radically nothing.Logically, pure and radical nothing may indeed be the case, but more than logically, there isobviously something (such as such), so the assumption of ‘nothing’, would have to either be sofar out that the boundary is vague and any grasping it distant, or there would have to be adistinction, a boundary between ‘pure and radical’ nothingness and anything, which would itself  be something. The only alternative to pure and radical nothingness would be what I call ‘theAbsolute Infinite’, although Corrigan calls it ‘Omnific Awareness’. My term for ultimate realitymeans Infinity, that is not some perverted, watered-down notion of it, or predicate of it, as we findin mathematical infinities, which are more appropriately ‘indefinitudes’. Corrigan’s term for ultimate reality is ‘Omnific Awareness’, and it means that ultimately, beyond experience andexistence, is an awareness of all awareness, awareness itself, and Awareness is all-creating, all-manifesting, and all-the-more-synonyms. Awareness is what lies behind stars and under hills, andempty holes it fills. But also the phenomena, the objects of awareness are awareness, awareness‘animadverted’ (“The act of bringing some phenomenon forth into the world, and a consciousnessof it, by the advertisement of Awareness upon It.” from his Glossary). Awareness and the Infinite(or ‘Omnific Awareness’ and the ‘Absolute Infinite’) are quite different, but in these systemstaken to be equally general and ultimate.Well, without further analysis, my system and Corrigan’s system seem pretty similar.The only discernable difference from what was written or read of this essay so far (which mighthave seemed like a pretty good description) is that I call it ‘the Infinite’, and he calls it‘Awareness’, but otherwise the structure seems the same, indeed most of it is. But there is aqualitative difference that I haven’t yet found outside myself, my big difference: Differenceitself, or Distinction itself, in my system, is the central point, the Self, which I call ‘pure’subjectivity, which is the same as ‘pure’ self-reference, or self-referential Being, the source or origin, being-in-itself. Of course, the self is not to be found by the self, for that would be toobjectify subjectivity, thereby annihilating it. This notion of pure (I could just as well qualify itas abstract or transcendental) subjectivity is the first and only impossibility, from the ‘perspective’of the Infinite (of course this ‘perspective’ is a false assumption, a metaphor, an imaginary notion,not Real) and its very negation. Yet it is within this absolute impossibility that our wholecontexture (ontological domain, from mathematico-cybernetician Gotthard Gunther’s notion of ‘contexturality’ as a logical domain) of Being exists, and has it’s ‘reality’ (not really reality: notultimately), for things exist in reference to other things which exist, and without this inter-
 
coherence of hetero-reference, there would be no existence (for existence is not Reality, is notultimate reality). And all this intercoherence of hetero-references (objects) grants the capturedfeeling of concreteness to the forms (which capture, the ‘capta’ or data); thus the
illusion
of 
concrete
“reality.” My point is that my system is absolutely unique in that it positsthat differenceitself/ pure subjectivity/ in-ness (in, itself)/ pure self-reference/ Being/ Being-in-itself/ myradicalized notion of ‘the Infinitesimal’/ the Same (as contrasts ‘the Other’)/ The One/ Oneness/the unicity of unity, the unity of the unit, pure singularityare allthe same‘big difference’, and they are all synonymous notions which point beyond themselves as only mere references,indications, mere traces of the penultimate reality, and this is the closest we can get to theUltimate! We must keep in mind that we are on
this side
of the Distinction,
within
the realm of Being, and so must bear in mind
the difference between difference and reference, thedistinction between distinction and indication.
It is funny that this distinction is a self-referential distinction (albeit an asymmetrical one), for my thesis is that distinction is self-reference, itself.Synonymous with our positions are the terms ‘Surjective’ and ‘Superjective’,respectively, Corrigan’s technical term, and my own. But what is surjected (like injected, withthe prefix indicating the ‘upon’ relation) onto the world is not the same in our systems: his isAwareness, and mine is the Infinite, and mine requires a big difference before the world is made(‘animadverted’ or otherwise distinguished from ultimate reality, however the derivative andconsequent, antecedent reality takes shape). This big difference is my distinction betweendistinction itself, which I take to be pure and radical oneness (as Michael Lambert of the series“The Highlander” would say “There can be only One”) and ultimate reality that I call theAbsolute Infinite,
and they are not the same
. My non-dual ultimate reality differs fromCorrigan’s and most philosophers’ systems in that it is divided, and the very division itself is thisoneness. Yes, oneness, the non-dualist’s category of the ultimate, is not my ultimate, but my pen-ultimate, and also called ‘the same’ (as contrasts ‘the other’ or ‘the Infinitely and Totally Other’)is the oneness, and perhaps surprising to most monists, it is ‘the first distinction’, difference itself,identity and difference as pure self-reference, being in itself!
 And it is not ultimate!
It is thecenter and source and wellspring, indeed, as the act of distinction, of the world of forms, but ithas nothing to do with the world’s content as value, significance, meaning, semantics, ethics,aesthetics, and overall axiology. This distinction within the formless as the source of form, as the‘first distinction’, is utterly unique to my metaphysical system, and I take it to be true. Corrigandoesn’t speak of the source as a distinction, but as Awareness, and although this sounds different,it is not, I am in complete agreement with Corrigan, although he may not be in agreement with

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
efipaz liked this
Georgeirizarry liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->