From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Sat Sep 17 2005 - 10:57:35 BST
Hi Ham:
I said:
>
>
>> ...all non-sentient 'things' are just different manifestations
>> of the same illusionary reality.
>
>Did you mean to place "illusionary" before "reality"?
>
>You do agree, do you not, that ultimate reality is not illusionary?
>Otherwise our polarity/duality equations are for naught.
I agree, I refer to the existential reality, not the essential, absolute reality.
>
>(I just want to make sure we're on the same page metaphysically.)
>
>Also, although I think we're in agreement, you didn't give me your feedback
>on monism "encompassing" duality as opposed to "excluding" it. Perhaps
>there's a better term. "Unifying", "consolidating", and "transcending" come
>to mind. I do think it's important to use a word that expresses the
>creative potential of Essence without impugning the integrity of its
>absolute Oneness. Any suggestions?
Well from the monism side there really isn't such thing as a duality. Let me re-phrase it. There's Essence, or absolute reality, that which we all really are. From this Essence PoV it's obvious that everything is nothing other then that. From an Essence point of view, even considering that there may be anything else is impossible, because than the monism, or Essence would become caught up by illusion, and become a duality, or multiplicity. So from an Essence PoV, everything is still, and has allways been nothing but that, Essence. But we forgot, we thought we were something else, we thought we were different, individuals, and from this individualistic PoV we build our own reality, existence.
Maybe I've used this before but there's a story about a tree standing by the ocean, it saw the ocean, and wanted to become the ocean, one day, it thought it had become the ocean. After a while it realized it wasn't happy. Somoehow it was an unhappy ocean. He longed for being a tree again, not realizing he'd never ceased being a tree in the first place.
Well... it's this kind of stories that work better for me then a lot of philosophology. We want to be reconnected to our source, all we have to do is to forget we ever got seperated from it, by our own will.
Does this answer your question?
So, more concrete, a monism/Essence doesn't exclude anything, it can't.
>Incidentally, I'm sorry to see we're losing Jos. We had our disagreements,
>and he joined this site after you did, but he is among the very few here who
>would have supported our arguments for a primary source.
It's a shame, but there's people trying to convince him to stay, so all's not lost yet.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 Sep 17 2005 - 11:25:20 BST