Esay 19-Absolute Object and Relative Object

Opening

Imagination is a powerful tool for the discovery of many objects. However, imagination might lead us to contradictions if it is not handled properly. This is true for the new concept discovered through imagination, that is the concept of absolute object and relative object. Perhaps this concept might seem unnecessarily complicated to add into the philosophical system but I assure you that all knowledge in philosophy is valuable, regardless how seemingly complicated they are. As such this essay will be devoted to this new imaginative concept.

Discussion

One particular basis for the concept of absolute object is the acknowledgement that dynamic objects exist, proven through basic sensory experience. However, if there are dynamic objects, imagination and the principle of experience dictates that static objects must exist. Static objects, as the name suggests are objects which cannot change. I do not see how they would violate the laws of reality, so surely, they have to exist. As a consequence of their static condition, their existence must be different from dynamic objects.

The way their existence differs is that due to the idea that if a static object is present within a dynamic system, that static object becomes a dynamic object due to the extrinsic properties. As such surely a static object must exist completely separate from any dynamic object, otherwise it would be “contaminated” with the dynamic condition. Though further analysis will reveal that there might be no true static objects due to the position in reality.

Aside from the basis of static and dynamic objects, the rest of the basis of the absolute object is wild imagination. Let us say that there is a red car, but this car exists independently from all other things. It cannot change as well, and as a result it is incapable of interacting with other objects. Both static objects and the red car share one similarity, they stand independent of other objects and have almost no relationship with other objects, as such they require a concept which unites them together, that is the absolute object.

The absolute object is difficult to describe other than the statement that they are the highest level of an object such that it cannot interact with any other object. We can also refer to its term “absolute”, that is the limits of the absolute object are absolute, meaning it cannot be violated. As such any member of the absolute object cannot leave the absolute object, not even consciousness may leave the absolute object.

Therefore, the contents of an absolute object stay the same, there can be no addition or subtraction of the contents of an absolute object. Because if there is, it is not an absolute object but a relative object. What is a relative object? A relative object is then an object whose limits are “relative” to the conscious being, which designates them as an object in their minds with some form of limits to focus awareness on the relative object. However, as their limits are relative, they are violable and the contents of the object can change.

The unfortunate problem of absolute objects is that they still remain in the same massive category that is the category of existence and so they belong in reality. Despite having no dynamic relationships with other objects, the fact that they exist with other objects in reality is sufficient to cause them to have an extrinsic property with the dynamic objects and their different active states.

Let us illustrate this with 2 objects alone, X as the static object and Y as the dynamic object with just 2 states, A and B. Now surely X when Y is A and X when Y is B are different objects and we are right to say that. A potential solution is to duplicate Y into different versions which are at different states. So, there is X, A, B at all times. In the world of absolute objects, the order does not matter, for there is no space. Space is a medium for extrinsic relationships and thus necessarily no space exists between or among absolute objects.

However, if we label each version of Y, then the difference will be apparent. At one point there is X, 1A, and 2B, then we have X, 1B, and 2A. Those 2 objects of X are already different as it occupies a different reality, or as a whole it is a different instant of reality. What this tells us is that there are actually no true static objects. We can imagine static objects, that further analysis of our own imagination will reveal their true nature.

Here is the second problem, due to the fact that we can’t escape our own absolute object, we can never truly imagine the other absolute objects. We can still be certain of the idea of an absolute object because we still have one data point, our own absolute object. As such when we imagine “absolute” objects, we are probably imagining what is within our own absolute object instead of a true absolute object. These objects are then “pseudo” absolute objects. As such, it is possible for the structures of an absolute object to mimic the structures of a complete reality itself.

Then here is a troubling question, for example we have a pseudo absolute red car in this absolute object. Can we declare that there is a truly absolute version of that red car outside our own absolute object? The problem is again with the principle of conscious experience, that all experience of X proves the existence of X. So, if we are imagining an absolute red car, then it exists, even if the actual imagination is not the actual absolute red car. This is slightly troubling, but it would be more troubling if we consider the next situation.

Imagine if in reality there is a red car which has exactly identical intrinsic properties, but one is a completely absolute object which we “cannot imagine” and the other is a pseudo absolute object inside of our own absolute object such that we can imagine it. Our awareness of the red car then affects this absolute object in actual terms such that the red car now exists actually. What affected this absolute object, the red car outside of the absolute object or the pseudo absolute red car?

What is the difference then? If we can imagine the absolute red car, we will probably be stuck with the same red car as the pseudo red car. Just that way the laws of absolute object would be violated. So, there is some sort of philosophical equivalence. However, consider that we are a conscious being in that absolute red car. All we can imagine is that red car along with its modifications, nothing else. Or perhaps we can only imagine that red car, without ever being able to imagine the other absolute object as the consciousness is limited to its own absolute object.

So, it seems unfair and inconsistent that we can reach that absolute object, but the other consciousness cannot reach our own absolute object. Then this all comes down to how we define absolute object. If an absolute object can be traversed by consciousness then that is included in the properties. However, we cannot declare that we have imagined an object that is impossible to imagine. Regardless of whether that impossible-to-imagine object has the same intrinsic properties as an object inside of our own absolute object.

The next question is, what if we imagine a consciousness which can experience all of reality? This is the problem of imagination; it can result in contradictory existences and we must choose which exists and which does not. However, previous findings suggest that it is possible to imagine something which does not actually exist. They exist enough to cause imagination but they are not enough for us to completely experience it. In such cases we are allowed to justifiably claim the non-existence of objects. Then which existence must we sacrifice, the absolute or the consciousness?

The answer is determined by which object would be more fundamental and take precedence? Unfortunately, such answer might not exist so we are left to analyse both answers. If we take the absolute, then an all-encompassing consciousness is impossible. We would then imagine something which only exists in the spiritual realm with nominal properties alone but doesn’t actually exist, such as the violations of law. If we take the consciousness, then there are no absolute objects as everything is connected by the consciousness.

Then again, by the concept of extrinsic properties, there are already no truly static or absolute objects. A completely absolute object unaffected by all other things must exist in a “separate” reality, which we know is completely impossible. Then it would not be absurd to consider that all objects can be known by a supreme consciousness. Now what if we imagine a truly absolute object which cannot even be reached by consciousness? The only properties of such object which can interact with us is the property that they cannot be experienced. Which would take precedence again, the absolute or the consciousness?

We are justified in taking the absolute as the principle of experience dictates that and no other law of reality is violated by the presence of extra-phenomenal objects. However, we are equally justified to take the consciousness as the principle of experience justifies it as being existent and no other law of reality is violated by the presence of a supreme consciousness. Then necessarily, until someone more enlightened reaches this point of philosophy, we are forced to accept that such knowledge is unreachable and it depends on faith to choose which we wish to believe. We can either empower objects or empower consciousness.

Closing

The basis of imagination has led us to the concept of absolute objects only to result in a possibility that there are no actual absolute objects. As we can possibly imagine a consciousness which is simply all-encompassing all of reality. However, the problem in reality lies unresolved as all possibilities are equally justified by the principle of conscious experience. This is probably an example of the incompleteness theorem, that there are unjustifiable facts which exist. We should be satisfied in what we have now, and pursue this no more.