GWF Hegel

Other Philosophers:
Nietzsche
Hume
Kant
Pirsig

Scientists:
Einstein
Jung

Philosophy Branches:
Metaphysics
Empiricism
Politics
Epistemology
Ethics
Religion
Values
Sexuality

Allied Study:
Mysticism

Controversy and Beyond

Qualifications

Welcome to Rod Cameron’s website dedicated to changing the definition of logic.

This is where the etymologically correct definition of logic; logos logic, can be sourced.

With the discovery of the logos, philosophy has advanced to where the great

religions started and to where philosophy has its own roots.

The logos is the source of all things; the physical, sentience, intelligence and the transcendent. The transcendent is rational. Logos logic is absolute Truth.

Free from this website you may download the last great major development in philosophy; an ebook that is a conclusive metaphysic. There are instructions for downloading.

Tracing reason to its beginnings means the end of philosophy. Jesus Christ, the self-proclaimed logos-incarnate, said, “I am the alpha and the omega [the beginning and the end].” With logos logic philosophy ends with transcendence.

I have no problem with Jesus proclaiming to be, and being proclaimed as, the Word, logos, Son, Way, Godhead, Truth life and light, it all means the same, but the claims are best interpreted symbolically, suited to the intellectual limitations of that historic period. This philosophy is suited to these times and could not pertain to another age.

Logos logic shifts reasoning from relativities to absolutes, from values and appearances to causes. The change challenges every religious, political and educational system, so the interested bystander can look forward to a period of intellectual ferment. The prevailing idea of logic [ie. dialectic] is assumed, and it cannot resist being relieved of the title of logic. Controversy should not be encountered if logic is antecedent to values and personal thought, but automatic acceptance of this degree of change cannot be assumed.

The ebook

The download is a book of 200 pages and 0.7 Megabytes [MB]. Its most notable features are diagrams. The explication of absoluteness requires diagrams because the detail cannot be expressed in sentences. There are diagrams to explain single Truths, sets of Truths and the system of sets, making diagrams indispensable for the sake of being explicit.

Please read the book from start to finish. Random reading is not conducive to comprehension. You must anticipate reading 49 pages before being able to gauge the quality of the logic.

After an Introduction to the technicalities of logic [Ch. 1], the philosophy begins with political examples of logic/Truth [Ch. 2]. The quest [Ch. 3] to find the genesis of the political Truths joins politics with psychology. This novel systematising of secular concepts reaches into religious realms, the highest point of which [Ch. 4] is arriving at the logos. The following chapter [Ch. 5] deals with aspects of sexuality which are supplementary to the systematising. Next [Ch. 6] comes historic determinism which is a return to politics. To conclude [Ch. 7] there are outstanding academic challenges to metaphysics from Hume and Kant to answer on behalf of metaphysics in general and logic in particular.

Absolute Truth

There is considerable interest in absolute Truth on the internet. Numerous religious sites include it in their title or it emerges as a perennial for debate in discussion groups, but only this site delivers the absolute article. In the following scroll page I will outline what is integral to logic/Truth. The above list of hypertexts is a short reference to what is woven into a conclusive metaphysic on the subject. The top-most name, GWF Hegel, is the most indicative reference. Very few persons are well informed about Hegel. A greater number have an opinion about Hegel, but most would find him obscure and inaccessible. I would strongly advise Readers not to employ any value judgments because logic is antecedent to values. I have made Hegel accessible by providing definitions for what is crucial in his speculative metaphysics. Together Hegel and I form a formidable team. We bracket the last two centuries which is the epoch of political ideology.

There is no purpose in tantalising you with a preview example of logic because without its accompanying comment on technicalities the raw Truth is meaningless and unengaging.

This is the definition of logic:

subjective events countervail objective events,

What the definition is describing is not apparent because absolute Truth is literally not apparent. It is immanent. Immanence, the ground of beginning or prerequisites for existing, must be explained in theory and example, with examples reinforcing examples and theory until the metaphysics are conclusive. What comprises a two-dimensional dichotomy is a critical technicality. Here lies a subtle fracture zone for a metaphysician to cleave a crucial distinction. The world only knows to proceed by value judgments and that definitely won’t do in respect to two-dimensional dichotomies. The outcome is the termination of ethics. First comes the subtlety and next the crushing blow. There is plenty of intellectual drama.

In lieu of examples of logic I will explain in general terms the Holy Trinity [see notes on Religion]. It is essential for the process of creation that three absolutes are simultaneously One. The Holy Trinity is a creation doctrine, which with metaphysical interpretation becomes a creation theory. Far from being a monotheistic contradiction, the Holy Trinity is a big Truth wrapped in symbolism. The logos, which Christ symbolised, is actively involved in creation, so Christ represented more than a conduit to salvation.

A theory of creation is the only tenable ground for authorising a claim to absoluteness. How creation happens determines what is absolute. The Creative Cause has a single design [logic] and this design is the hallmark of what is absolute. Logic is capable of infinite variety.

Current theories for creation involve God or the Big Bang. God or gods are a guess when there isn’t an idea for what causes creation. The Big Bang is as far as science can objectively go. Metaphysics goes further than religion and science.

Absolute Truth did not stay hidden by being objectively obvious. The secret of its imperceptibility is supersensible subtlety; it has no focus, no attitude, no “colour”. Appearances are replete with relative truths because appearances are relative. The objectively obvious is relative. Absoluteness is more than objective but less than obvious by being a network without a subject, while conventional reasoning is subject orientated.

A conclusive metaphysic is imperative. An incomplete metaphysic is doomed to failure. While it is fun for young and old to pontificate about the likelihood of absolute Truth, the actual task cannot be a piece-meal affair because immanence is a web of connections that substantiate the austere, single example. A single example is easily dismissed as an abbreviated assemblage. A network of abbreviations becomes facets, and facets close to become comprehensive statements of complexities. A single abbreviation is more destitute than an orphan.

Logic is not the only new formula. Logic has to find within the logos a sister concept [I call it “Enhancement”] to finish the job. Not all of immanence is logical, “fixed” or unchanging. Historic development is fluid, and requires another formula to explicate. Critics would enjoy finding an area of inadequacy and to believe logic alone was immanence would have proven inadequate. Not only do I intend to change logic, but also I intend to terminate ethics. Logic cannot address all ethical issues, and, without Enhancement, logic would be compromised. It is crucial that logic is definitive and therefore beyond controversy. With Enhancement, logic’s validity is reinforced.

Another reason for needing a conclusive metaphysic is that every individual capable of comprehending metaphysics will feel obliged to adjust from being an interested bystander to become the next great critic of systemic metaphysics. [I would.] It takes a rare talent to build a metaphysical system and the ability of others to progress from scepticism to constructive improvement cannot be assumed. Hegelianism was unalloyed with original metaphysics for 170 years. I have not heard of orthodox neo-Hegelianism, only schools of interpretation. With a conclusive metaphysic there is the comfort of knowing any critic with a value judgment is exposing his short-comings, not your own.

GWF Hegel: Anyone wishing to explicate absoluteness has to critique Hegel. That is not a problem because I agree with Hegel and am happy to share the honour of ending philosophy with him. Hegel’s speculative metaphysics and my definitive metaphysic dovetail. My stance towards Hegel is orthodox. According to the commentator Charles Taylor, Hegelian orthodoxy has supposedly ended for “no-one actually believes [his] ontological thesis that the universe is posited by a spirit whose essence is rational necessity”, or in other words, no one believes there is rational determinism in history. I see determinism in history. The Will of the World-Spirit is discernible from our experience of ideology. Ideology was what the 20^th Century was about, meaning, the experience of capitalism vs. socialism is the raison d’etre for there being a 20^th century. Determinism boils down to a big issue that answers more than one question and is not appraised by conventional reasoning. Colossal events and metaphysics have had their meeting. There is a metaphysician at the beginning and end of the ideological epochl, we are in agreement and I don't speculate.

I don’t mind being thought of as an Hegelian, but it is not accurate. Hegel’s influence on me applies only to his philosophy of history, and then I have added to his doctrine. Before I learnt about Hegel I had built my system and needed only to add an historical dimension. Knowledge of Hegel before beginning my system-building would only have been a hindrance because there is nothing in his theorising that leads the dialectic mind [conventional reasoning] to logic. Hegel’s ideas are only made sagacious by logic and logic is a complete departure from dialectic as Hegelian scholars exemplify by remaining scholars. Conventional reasoning would never make what is mystical, rational, and Hegel is closer to mysticism than dialectic.

From Hegel I got a philosophy of history and inspiration. As a thinker, I am a loner, and its fabulous to learn you are not alone in the philosophic community of immortal minds. I found my intuitions expressed by “The Cunning of Reason” doctrine where determinism progresses via the terrors of history, not its moments of hope. I concur with the nation-state being the True individual of history. People give new expression to their national identity in each period and leaders are a reflection of their society. The climax of history is the rationalising of religion, and transcendent rational consciousness is the primary value in a creation where “Reason is sovereign” [Hegel]. Ours is a rational universe whose highest achievement is finite minds coming to consciousness of Infinite Mind.

Other Philosophers

Friedrich Nietzsche is relevant because he warned of Christian ethics being slave morality and a degenerate influence. His prediction of the re-evaluation of all values has eventuated.

David Hume challenged metaphysics to produce scientific substantiations. His demand made certain assumptions about the nature of scientific truth, and failed to understand  metaphysics’ mission. Anyhow there are three scientific proofs for logic.

Immanuel Kant made an important response to David Hume’s radical scepticism which, in its ramifications, compromised metaphysics. The metaphysician who wishes to end philosophy has to address this challenge as part of a conclusive explanation.

Robert Pirsig has identified the uniqueness of ‘quality’ and made an effort to explain how it is elicited by caring. Quality is an absolute value.

Scientists

Carl Jung’s eight basic archetypes of the Collective Unconscious are invaluable in my systematising. Subjective Mind which explains the human soul, and objective Mind which explains the soul of the nation [yes, it has one] are concomitant and need to be dealt with jointly to secure definitiveness. Jung’s archetypes and the nation’s soul perform a spectacular marriage of subjectivity and objectivity that lays the foundations for systematising reality. Subjectivity is a part of reality and has to take its place in any metaphysical a priori concept that can bind together the observed facts. The task has been to know what subjective facts are indispensable. Jungian archetypes are amongst that company.

Albert Einstein produced scientific rarities in his Theories of Relativity. They are absolute scientific Truths. Virtually all of science is relative truth, but the Relativity Theories, which ipso facto are absolute by being true about the nature of relativity, have an underpinning logic, which Einstein did not see.

Philosophic branches

Metaphysics: logos logic is a metaphysical logic. When logic completes its systematising, metaphysics has defined immanence. Reality can only be understood via immanence. In keeping with its reputation as the most ambitious branch of philosophy, metaphysics will take over from science, objectivity and the anachronism that is religion.

Empiricism: Metaphysics’ success rests on the achievements of empiricism. The science-lead revolution of the marketplace produced industry. Industry produced ideology. Political experiences follow from testing ideologies. The experiences provide metaphysics with facts and renewed relevance when it climbs out from this multi-dimensional muddle.

Politics: This is philosophy’s largely deserted front line. In accordance with Hegel’s insight, 20^th century philosophy was going to be arid for nothing is before its time. Humanity had to complete its experience of ideology before the philosophic agenda could proceed to its climactic business; the explication of absoluteness via the resolution of ideology. This did not have to mean 20^th century philosophy needed to be pathetic as flag-bearing academics decamped from the very real problems of 20^th century politics in search of irrelevancies, including a toady reverence for science. Conventional thinking could not resolve ideology, but instead of recognising this as the place where reality, need and reason were adrift, and being excited by the possibility of being useful, it was left to economists, political scientists, politicians, commentators, students and time.

Because Hegel’s speculations were fundamentally correct there remained on philosophy’s agenda the business of particularising, and extending his ideas. In the interim Nietzsche could be prescient and Pirsig could find an intriguing value, but philosophy was destined to revisit scholasticism till absoluteness was identified. There have been capable minds since Hegel, but it is a matter of being in the right place [politics] at the right time [end of the 20^th century] with a rare talent [mystical-mindedness].

The only question that accesses absoluteness is the matter of capitalism vs. socialism. Logic endorses democratic capitalism on grounds that are free of values. Marxists think they have a mortgage on Hegel, but forget about them. The Reader can appreciate the political stance of this philosophy compliments liberalism, but I caution that liberal values are not part of the package.

Epistemology: This is one place where academics avoided front line service. In the modern period of empirical scholasticism, epistemology has been an academic favourite and politics a research area for ethics. Epistemology is not of relevance to logic because epistemology is a subset of dialectic, and dialectic is not the equal of logic. Epistemology can only address relative truth. It seems unsure about what confirmation it can afford relative truth and is totally inadequate to appraise an absolute Truth because there is no category called absolute Proof. Absolute Truth cannot confirm itself absolutely because it is organic and cannot stand outside of itself. The beatific is a mystics’ absolute Proof. Ordinary proofs will have to suffice for us lesser mortals.

In the absence of absolute Proof I can still claim to have discovered absolute Truth. The best that can be said, regardless of how many conventional proofs I stack-up, is, "He is probably right". Alternatively, some-one can add another Truth, thereby buttressing and joining the Hegel-Cameron fraternity of co-claimants. The limitation on our ability to have certainty does not diminish the case for changing the definition of logic. Dialectic has been king-hit. The unavailability of Proof keeps philosophy alive, even when its ended.

Ethics: The relativity of ethics is a proven fact and the termination of ethics follows. Ethics is a victim of reasoning acquiring dimension, [re. two-dimensional dichotomies], and then the relativity of ethics is obvious. We should be grateful for this casualty. Nietzsche tried to warn us about ethics, but ethics comes entrenched with dualistic religion [God is good] and rejection of ethics is not sufficient. Dualistic religion has to be surpassed to terminate ethics, therefore it serves to have rationalised religion.

It is one thing to notice the perfidies of ethics and another to provide absolute answers that reveal the inadequacy, such that the absolute answer and the ethical opinion are two distinct answers. The denouement of ethics demands the re-evaluation of all values because goodness is the mother ethic. A handful of values are distinguished by being absolute, but for the great majority of values their status declines.

Religion: Any absolute Truth is relevant to religion. The primary concern of religion is creation, and with creation comes absoluteness. The rationalisation of religion begins with examples of political absoluteness and is completed by the rationalising of two Christian absolutes; the Holy Trinity and the logos. There is no need to inspect and interrogate each and every religious idea. Attend to what is quintessential, ie. creation, and the task is effected. [Because religions are weak on absoluteness they focus on ethical instruction, symbolism, scripture, sites, rites, relics, etc.] Some mystery remains, but all of exoteric religion and a major part of mysticism become rational territory. Judaism and Islam will be just as affected as Christianity.

The Holy Trinity: The Holy Trinity of Father, Son [logos] and Spirit are symbols for distinct realities that are absolute in their own right. These absolutes together comprise creation and the explanation avoids a creator being separate from creation. The Holy Trinity is a creation doctrine and the following is the broad theory.

Christ made a number of references to his affinity with light. He said, “I am in the Father and the Father in me” [John 14:11], which alludes to the dynamism that sustains creation. A parallelism is, ‘the fruit is in the seed and the seed is in the fruit’. Educated people know that matter consists of light. There is more to the relationship between matter and light than science can tell. Matter and its embryonic complement share the same metaphysical “elements” that again are only appreciated in the context of their elicitation. The above explanation for creation shares the same logic as the resolution for ideology. There are many steps between the ideological beach-head and the religious summit, but if the above seems plausible and intriguing, then the Reader will find the detail fascinating.

The Holy Trinity is where science and religion eventually meet under the auspices of metaphysics. This event was much sought by the religious. Scientists are indifferent to lesser achievers and science is unable to co-exist with other bodies of ideas, i.e. ethics, religion, ideology. Metaphysics is not about to get matey with science. The metaphysical claim to logic uses science to eclipse science, because it can better interpret the results than science. Science lies at the heart of our culture and its hegemony is an issue. Metaphysics has the better claim to knowledge of reality and this will see it rein-in this value-free discipline. Not, I must add, because logic is endowed with values, but because logic has to be the greatest idea, ever.

Values: Values are what people think is important. When goodness is demoted to relativity, the bottom falls out of what is ethically important. This is just as well if the world is to be rescued from illusions that lead to wars. A development of logic’s magnitude will have consequences for strategic studies. Wars are generally fought over resources, but there has to be some justification or excuse that precedes the action, and those reasons generally involve values. The re-evaluation of all values puts war justification in a new light when the justifications are relative.

Democracy is an absolute value and democracies are noted for their avoidance of war. The logic of democracy endorses the system with the best record of non-aggression. The shortcomings of non-democratic aggressors who enjoy the smoke of cultural relativity, are made starker by the absolute judgment in favour of democracy.

Absolute values are democracy, citizenship, environmental consciousness, quality and “Caring”. Amongst relative values to be re-evaluated are anti-racism, equality, justice, progress, and economic growth.

Sexuality: Logic is most clearly discerned at a political level and it is not exhaustively relevant to personal life. One arena where logic is explicit in individual behaviour is sexuality. Logic sanctions committed heterosexuality and censures homosexuality.

Mysticism: Metaphysicians are philosophers who try to rationalise mysticism. That this is not recognised as philosophy’s goal is mystifying, but it would be a different world if it were a truism. The two mystical texts I most interrogate are the "Tao Te Ching" and "The Gospel According to Thomas", [the usual suspects]. I have also quoted Meister Eckhart. Metaphysicians who do not attend to mysticism are empirical colonists. Be gone!

Controversy and Beyond

While reactions to this philosophy will range all the way to offended and probably beyond into the hysterical, this is not a controversial philosophy. What people think is important, even righteous and divine rarely accords with the Way of the logos and the re-evaluation of all values is certain to disappoint many that are self-righteous and highly opinionated. The propensity to object to the philosophy is a reflection on how well read it is. When carefully read it is realised that this is not a personal statement but the pursuance of logic. Logic follows its own reasoning. It is not a handmaiden to any persuasion. Indeed, logic arrives at the logos or a reductio ad absurdum; it finds its way home or it self-destructs.

Judgments about logic reveal more about the commentator than the logos and invariably the judgments reflects poorly on the critic.

It is a truism that values have superseded truth, witness political correctness, and it is to be expected that values will continue to rank higher in some peoples estimation than absolute Truth. To have trouble with logic is to have trouble with Truth. It is vital that logic is non-controversial yet I know people will continue to place values before Truth.

If I had to settle for a lesser prize than the discovery of logos logic, then I have made evident the need for absoluteness. The shortcomings of dialectic reasoning have been laid bare and there will be no more delusion about it being logic.

Qualifications

Philosophic qualifications are worse than irrelevance. No qualifications are required to be a philosopher. But because of academia’s monopoly of philosophy it is assumed that qualifications are a prerequisite to do philosophy. If only qualifications were that harmless. The satisfying of this presumed prerequisite does serious damage to the capacity to become a genuine philosopher. i.e. someone who is an original thinker and whose name will survive the centuries.

Philosophic qualifications are an entree to the herd. The recipient shares in the herd mentality.

I have no philosophic qualifications and this automatically makes me more qualified to be the real thing than the professional teacher who believes his academic record and publications qualify him for recognition as a philosopher. Philosophy teachers and students are handicapped and rendered useless as original thinkers by perpetuating the presumption that the furtherance of philosophy is the furtherance of the consciousness inherent to the prevailing logic. A definition of logic is a fateful step. It is the antecessor to all that follows from embarking upon that precept. On antecedents in philosophy nothing can be taught; it is an area synonymous with originality … it is outside of the canon. The branch of philosophy called “logic” does not begin to hint at how pivotal, crucial and fateful the acceptance of a logic is. This is simply revealed by logic being taught without reference to the logos. Secondly, it is a classic assumption that every proposition must be true or false, and cannot be both. Every relative truth is both true and false; true in its relevance, false in its partiality, so what passes for logic disappears with ethics after absolute Truth is ensconced.

To participate in academic philosophy is to participate in the delusion that dialectic is logic. It totally ignores mysticism, the witness of some mystics that the Absolute is rational and the possibility of mysticism being systemic. It ignores the etymology of logic being the mystical logos. It is especially remiss in ignoring that the assumed logic has no verity, i.e. what are dialectic’s qualifications? To think that philosophy is the avoidance of faith and mysticism, is to rush on in ignorance of the genesis of reasoning. The first step in philosophy is critical and a course in philosophy invariably proves disastrous to the capacity to contemplate ‘Square One’ where no direction is chosen and no premises and presumptions are accepted. This blind spot meant that the discovery of absoluteness would be the province of an amateur. The masterstroke is not to pass ‘Square One’; not to pursue a direction or presumption. A mind with metaphysical propensities will not find any leads to absoluteness from the canon. As I’ve said, Hegel is right, but it is not possible to start where he finished. Basically, when nothing is known about absoluteness, you are on your own and it is a territory where you must rely upon your own intuitions. To go to university for philosophy is to give-up and fail.

I approached philosophy with the wish to resolve the problem of ideology - this was a lucky choice because it is the culminant question where absoluteness is finally objectively explicit. I reckoned that better, conventional minds than mine had not seen the answer so I would be well advised to work with my empathy for mysticism - I cleaved to the logos, not the logical, and remained at ‘Square One’. I had a religious experience to work with - this gift was better than a diploma. Furthermore, I literally had a gut instinct for the answer, so between my subjective predispositions and the objectivity necessary to resolve ideology there lay no indoctrination as to what constituted philosophy. My quest, our time in history, disregard for the establishment, given predispositions, luck and attitude all worked to my success which would have been paralysed by formal instruction. A tradition can never assemble the ingredients required to metamorphose. The telling fact is the logic of political economy [ideology] has more affinity with mysticism than with dialectic. Here was the serious issue, a real interface between need and the unknown … and the herd moved off.

Philosophy’s one obligation is to discover absoluteness. [Absoluteness is beyond argument so I don’t have to justify this statement.] Where was [academic] philosophy in the 20^th century? - certainly not on the trail of important questions. Directly or indirectly ideology hovered over the big events of these times and to what did the professionals direct their attention? - epistemology, language, science, … all they did was represent philosophy … kept it alive. Nothing was achieved in the 20^th century because it was the interval before political experience matured into transcendence. Nothing was ever going to happen but academic philosophy performed badly, demonstrating how conceited the irrelevant can become. In the absence of achievement there were illusions that what has happening was important and qualifications were part of the illusion.

Copyright

I hereby give permission to copy, print or distribute my book “logos logic” provided (1) each copy makes clear I am the author, (2) that no copies are altered, and (3) no one makes a profit from the copies.