Relativity, Self-Reference, Subject/Object

So it's back (after a 25 absence) to the conviction that "All things are relative" (or conditional in Buddhist speak).

But we can measure things. Being relative we can say where things lie relative to one another. So it is true that we can say that one person is richer than another, or has a bigger house or car etc. However this alone is not logos. To become logos we need to mix in a "standard" against which all things become relative. So we have the "metre" as the standard of length. Now we can say how things are relative to the metre and we have the practice of measurement we are familar with. Now we feel we can get the "absolute" length of things. Blue whales have been measured at 30 metres long ... fact!

Two things from this: 1) What is the metre, for example, of wealth? 2) How long is a meter?

Taking Q2 first: Because measurement depends upon relativity and comparing, when asked how long is a metre we try and compare a metre with itself (this is both habitual and a logical implication of the practice of measurement). What does our mind come up with? It's a blank. Suddenly a metre loses its solidity - it becomes a blank space with disconnected ends. When we try to put a start and an end on that space we still don't understand how "far" we have travellend between those ends - what sort of answer could be give? What logos is this? This blank is the same blank we get when trying to think about ourselves. This blank is NULL.

So I argue that self-reference is impossible but I realise that it is possible, just not measurable. When something refers to itself it lies outside/inside the relative, comparable world of symbols and logos. The first rule of self-reference club then is that you do not talk about self-reference club - indeed you can't because what symbols could you use to refer or compare oneself to oneself? This is why they say in matters of this kind that there is One because the self measures itself in a ratio of One:One - but this is actually inaccurate. There is not One God for the same reason that 0/0 is not 1 and NULL/NULL is not 1. Self does not measure self - you can't talk about it. It isn't a rule either actually since "rules" are measurements. That is why rulers measure distance and justice!

So what is the standard of Wealth? It can be chosen and become a custom and norm and a rule - the UN has done exactly this. We accept a standard of wealth, but it is no more real than a metre. It is simply a socially accepted way of doing things, a custom, a bit of culture - a rule in the game of measurement that we do.

And, what is Absolute then in this view? I spoke already of God and NULL. These are the Absolute Judges the measures of all things in antiquity. What of them today in the world of different standards like the metre? Well objectivity is the world of "external" measures where things are put side by side to see how they rank. Subjectivity is the name we give to the "inside" where something tries to relate to itself - subjectivity is then a nullification of objectivity.

While objectivity gives the sense of knowledge in that we can give a symbolic expression of something, I know that Blue-whales can grow to 30metres but I don't actuallty know how big this is. Someone usually says that this is the the length of 3 double-decker buses, not because we wanted to know that a double-decker bus is 10meters long, but because we have stood next to a double-decker bus and so we can compare the whale to ourselves. So how big then are we? Protagoras once said that "Man is the measure of all things"; I prefer "each man is the measure of all things"; when Man is asked to measure himself with himself, Man gets the answer NULL.

Yet NULL is not zero and it is not something. When they say we will become Nothing after death this is neither a ceasing to exist nor a beginning of some other existence - it is NULL, neither up nor down, neither full nor empty. I realise that the translation of sunyata in Buddhism which is usually emptiness is equally fullness cos really it means NULL. When NULL comes to play objective measurement is completely thrown into disarray. What was big when compared to small is now small against NULL and vice versa because NULL is both big and small objectively. I am both big and small - against a mountain I feel very small, but I look down at the ant following its intricate map and suddenly I am very big. How big am I? The best we can say (inaccurately) is that I am "me" sized but its better to leave it as NULL. What is perhaps a suprise then is that after death we are NULL sized and before death we are NULL sized - that is exactly the path to the deathless and ever lasting life which the religions speak of and which the objective world of metres and worldly laws mocks and crucifies. It is not that we are the same before and after death it is just there is no comparison - that too is NULL.

The Logos, the Dao, the Dharma etc are ironic then which I hadn't quite appreciated before. logos with a small letter and dharma with a small letter actually mean the opposite. I don't know about dao (it means path or way usually I think). logos are the things which are measured. dharma is sanskrit of "things". Its a deliberate irony then to use these words for the Absolute because it is quite the opposite. Logos is NULL against which all things have no measure and when you try to measure of compare with NULL you get the opposite of what you expected - it dumbfounds the comparing mind - the mind which is not at ease with itself and NULL. The Dharma is everything but a "thing" - I never understood the deliberate irony before. The middle-way to enlightenment and liberation requires everything but things and measurements (Buddha is meticulous in warning us away from extremes without posing any new "things" like limits etc to measure against).

Now where I got stuck all those years ago was in question like "green". How do we measure green? Doesn't green seem to occupy a place all by itself. It is certainly a lot different from simple distances. Yet there are standard colours (7 at last count) and some extras and we speak about all others using these measures - blue-green etc. It is when we compare green with itself that it becomes NULL and we are left dumbfounded about what green really is. Because green comes in areas rather than a distance I think this is what seems to give the problem its extra piquance. And so of emotions and feelings do we compare how we feel from day to day? Do we try and measure these things to find out if we are happy or not? Do we read magazines to try and find out how to be "happier". Yes we measure these against the standards also. But what is sadness compared to itself? and what is happiness compared to itself? NULL. Mahayana Buddhism (unlike Theravada) says that they are then the same - this is another comparison and not strictly accurate - but then they aren't different either - there are incomparable as is God.