Although I’m not inherently a Platonist nor a neo-Platonist, I love his work as I’ve found I can understand life better with his logic.
The basis of both Parmenidian and Platonic logic is that there cannot be ‘nothing’, ‘nowhere’, ‘no time’, ‘partial being’, ‘wrong being’, ‘doubtful being’, ‘middle ground between being or not’, ‘being something or something else’. And for the same reason there cannot be ‘partially known’, ‘doubtfully known’ nor ‘unknown’. There can be ‘known’.
There can neither be negative existence nor negative knowledge. To think that something ‘is not’ is an existence and a knowledge. To think that something is ‘unknown’ is an existence and a knowledge too. There cannot be ‘nothing’. That which is simply is, and that which is cannot be something else in the same space and time.
Knowing one thing one moment and another thing in another moment, at one place and at another place makes us think of the illusion of ‘change’, of ‘progress’; we think that progress in existence and in knowing exists. In actuality each moment and place that is is complete and knowledge of each moment is complete too. Doubting that which is and that which is known are both additive thoughts. Seemingly combining one moment with another, one space with another, one form with another, considering that there can be ‘combinations’, ‘sums’ of those things, are additives as well.
So what could be wrong?
That logic is so great to employ in life, but it doesn’t explain how something can exist. It doesn’t answer the question ‘how come anything exists at all’?
My non binary logic is a different subject. It isn’t ‘logic’ at all. I just called it logic so I can contrast it with binary logic. It doesn’t refer to existence. It refers to potential for existence. Potential is not a ‘choice’, it is not a ‘yes or no’, leave alone a ‘maybe’. You cannot put it in a laboratory and examine it, although there can be potential to make laboratories and examine things. Potential cannot be defined, as if it was defined, it would no longer be potential. You could as well call it infinity.
The only potential existence is the ‘spiritual being’ or ‘soul’; the name doesn’t really matter as each author could give it a different name. The spiritual being has no inherent form, substance, it isn’t located anywhere nor in any time. It can be any form, place and time. It is the only exception to binary logic that can exist. Some refer to ‘free will’. That is it’s source.
You can test potential (or ‘free will’) right now if you wish to. You can think anything you want, and it can exist for you and you can know it. That existence exists because of you, you are it’s creator, and you can be in full control, and just as easily you can think that you aren’t. There is endless potential to think that unknown factors make you think what you can think, and you can think that they can think for you, or any other complexity you can think of. You can think there are reasons why you feel happy or depressed, and so feel happy or depressed. It is not wrong. But just as easily you can feel happy or depressed for no reason.
Confusing the spiritual being with the finite, binary existence can cause problems. The spiritual being is free, binary existence is finite. Problems can be solved by seeing, knowing each existence exactly as it is, in the moment and place that it is, by no longer confusing one thing with another.
Why can one think about problems forever on? You can never be certain about problems, they change as you perceive them. They are made of seeming change, variables, opposites (intentions, forces), seeming combinations, doubts, uncertainty which are not seen as they truly are. There cannot be any doubtful existence, but one can conceive that ‘doubt’ exists. A problem isn’t really one, a sum, it is two or more different forces, intentions, places, times that one can think they are one, combined.
Differentiating, seeing each thing as it truly is solves problems. There is no need to ‘change’ a problem, as a problem is already an actuality that is changed, that one is not aware of exactly as it is. There is only need to be exactly aware of what is what, each moment. An example of not doing that would be remembering something and confusing it with present time. Or looking at a chair and thinking that it’s a ‘chair’. Well, it isn’t. It is what you’re looking at. The concept ‘chair’ would be your own additive, and maybe you can label trillions of similar things ‘chairs’, but each one would be what it was, in the moment and place that it was. For the same reason we couldn’t speak of ‘men’ and ‘women’ either, and still speak the truth. Today, after 15 years of schooling, it is only enough to show a rapist on TV to convince everyone that ‘men rape’, or maybe that they don’t rape much but they rape a little bit. And in the same fashion to convince them that ‘women are gold diggers’ or maybe not that much. How come none of my girlfriends have been that? I don’t think it’s because they’ve been trying to make them be that, by making them think that is the ‘normal’ thing to be. I wonder when and where ‘normal’ exists, because I’ve never seen it.
We can make a co-relation here between those two ‘logics’. The more the spiritual being is aware of it’s free potential, the more solid, certain the things it can make and the things it can know. And of course certainty over what is known and what is made would also lead to an increased awareness of free potential.
How would ‘no problem’ be like? Certainty about that which is and freedom to be.