From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Jul 09 2005 - 08:58:48 BST
Hey, Reinier --
> Ham, something that just came to mind,
>
> You said:
> Just remember that time/space exists as a phenomenon in physical reality.
> Hence, the ontology you come up with must include a plausible explanation
of
> how it got here.
>
> Back to my 'fomula', If A is not limited in either time or space (so at no
time and at > no place there exist not-A) then we are not able to experience
A.
I don't have your complete logical formula, but it seems you are simply
justifying the proposition that a non-existent A is not experienced. This
is a truism, whether A is defined as "limited in time and space" or not.
> Neither Time nor Space are limited in Time or Space, so they're not part
of our
> experienced reality (duality).
But they are at least a "mode" of experience, are they not? In which case
they must still be part of our experienced reality.
> Also in unity neither of them exists, because unity is
> undifferentiated in every way. Therefor I say again, time and space do not
exist.
That is correct in the Absolute sense, but now you've switched from the
differentiated world of experience to the immutable nature of Essence
(buddha-nature, SQ, Unity, etc.) Absolute Oneness is indivisible. I've
gone so far as to say that Essence is not an "existent"; logically it
doesn't exist.
Like Plato, I see two different realities -- Essence (the undivided
immutable Source) and Finitude (the created S/O world of differentiated
otherness). That's why I find Cusa's theory so significant. Simply by
understanding Essence as Not-other (self-sameness), we can logically
conclude that any other is a not-other to Essence; yet, as I am an other,
Essence is still an other to me. (There's a term for this kind of "one-way"
syllogism -- "non-symmetric" or something.)
Another way to look at it: Essence "negates" otherness by denying it. We
(as negates) negate otherness (as being) by affirming its value. (That's
Hegel's "double negation" which I've modified slightly to use in my Creation
thesis.)
But to answer your question: Time and Space, taken in their entirety, are
the theoretical boundaries of what we experience as finite existence. They
are also the modalities (dimensions) of perception. So, in either case, I
say they exist in experiential reality but not in Essence which has no
boundaries or dimensions. I won't quarrel with your concept at this
juncture, however. Maybe later, when you've completed your MOR ;-).
Regards,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 09 2005 - 08:59:45 BST