Number 9,Number 9,,, from The Prisoner

[Guest guest]

The Subject or Self occupies a position analogous to that of the

parameter in mathematics. In simple and general terms, the parameter

may be thought of as a local invariant that varies when considered

over a larger domain. With respect to a specific case of a given

curve, it stands as the invariant element, but in the generation of a

whole family of curves of a given type, it is a variable. The

ultimate invariant is the plane or space in which the curves lie.

This supplies us with a thinkable analogue.

With respect to a specific entity, the invariable identity is the

Self, but with respect to all creatures and all modes of

consciousness, the Self becomes a parameter that varies. Behind and

supporting this parameter is the ultimate invariant, Pure

Consciousness Itself. Herein we have a key for the reconciliation of

the Atmic doctrine of Shankara and the anatmic doctrine of Buddha.

Esotericism states that the Atmic doctrine was a " stepped down "

formulation of the Buddha's doctrine and thus was more easily

assimilated by relative consciousness, whereas the pure Buddhist

doctrine was well-nigh completely incomprehensible without a

preliminary re-orientation of human consciousness.

 

Anyone who has read any considerable amount of mystical literature

can hardly fail to be impressed with the frequent affirmations and

denials of the same predicate. Often an assertion made is immediately

denied, or a counter assertion is made that logically implies the

negation of the first. The effect is naturally confusing and can,

quite understandably, lead the reader to question the sanity of the

writer. But the fact is that the mystic is seeking a formulation that

is true with respect to his realization, and he finds that his first

statement, while partly true, is also a falsification. The denial or

counter assertion is then offered as a correction. Too often the

reader is offered no rational explanation and is left to draw his own

conclusions, which are all too likely to be unfavorable to the mystic

and to mysticism as such. And, indeed, what is the good of a

statement if one cannot depend upon it so as to draw valid

conclusions that can be different from other ideas that are not true

to the meaning intended? Or, if the credibility of the mystic is not

questioned, then it may be concluded that the reality the mystic is

reporting is a sort of irrational chaos, something quite incompatible

with the notions of harmony, order, and equilibrium—a somewhat that

not only defeats all possible knowing but is quite untrustworthy as

well.

Now the fact is, the Gnostic Reality is not a disorderly chaos but is

of such a nature that a valid representation cannot be given in our

ordinary conceptual forms. These ordinary forms come within the

framework of the logic of identity, or otherwise stated, the logic of

contradiction. The primary principle here is classification in the

form of the dichotomy, i.e., all things are either A or not-A. There

is implied the exclusion of all that is neither A nor not-A, or is

both A and not-A. This is known in logic as the principle of

the " excluded middle, " and is employed considerably in reasoning with

respect to finite classes. But this is by no means our sole logical

principle employed in scientific thought. Thus, mathematics requires

the use of logical forms that cannot be reduced to the logic of

identity, nor is this adequate for problems dealing with processes of

becoming, as in organic evolution. As a consequence, there are

logicians who seriously question the universal validity of the

principle of the excluded middle. Thus it appears to be unsound when

applied to infinite classes, as in the case of the transfinite

numbers. As a consequence, then, the mystic may well be justified in

his effort to get around the excluded middle, without there being any

implication of defect of sanity on his part or lack of orderliness in

the Reality he is trying to represent.

Actually it is not hard to see how the logical dichotomy falls short

of being all embracing. Thus, the two classes of A and not-A, which

are supposed to embrace all that is, actually do not embrace the

thinker who is forming the classification. This is true even when the

two classes consist of the Self and the not-Self. The Self in the

classification is a projected Self, and therefore an object, and thus

is not the actual cognizing witness. The latter embraces both

classes, but is not contained privatively in either one. Therefore,

it can lie only in the excluded middle.

 

.......Notes 1 & 3,Chapter 6,

The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object

.........Franklin Merrell Wolff

 

Beautifully elegant formulation no?....bob