From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 16:26:31 BST
Hello Ham:
I'd started replying to your previous post that was directed to me, but this post has all the right material in it to forget that one and reply to this.
You had said:
>> That would make the breakout of relations automatic
>> and involuntary.
>
I replied:
>
>> Let's rephrase the last sentence to:
>> "That would make the breakout of relations inevitable
>> if the essential free will, even for an infinite moment of
>> time, has an egocentric direction."
Of which you said:
>Okay, "inevitable" is a good choice -- brilliant in fact -- and I can accept
>it in the logistical sense, but I cannot accept "infinite moment of time"
>because our definition for the primary source is pre-relational. Time and
>space cannot exist prior to relation.
This is a very true point, and I'm glad you made it. It was a poor choise of words and it was a compromise, I was aware of it.
I will again rephrase part of the above.
"That would make the breakout of relations inevitable, and it would be so inevitable that the potential of it becomes reality."
You rightfully said that in Essence there's no time and space. So our whole starting point is wrong. By asking the 'why' question, we assume a causal relation between an event and a result. Relations broke out because of.....
But there is no 'why' to answer, we cannot say 'it happened' just because we experience it. Because Essence has the potential, or the potential of a polarized reality is encompassed in Essence, we realize it. And in realizing that, we create our reality with time and space, thus looking for causal relationships.
So what we end up with is a realization of potential, which we call reality.
Tell me what you think of this explanation.
>I can provide the 'why' if you can give me the 'how'. But we'll both face
>awkward embarrassments later if we try to rush through the preliminaries.
Well, I'm not sure if I addressed any of those two. I'm pretty sure 'why' isn't the right question, I think we did a pretty good job explaining the 'how' already.
See in my - 'realization of potential' as reallity - theory, both question loose their meaning.
So
>far we've postulated a primary source with the properties of "absoluteness",
>"immutability" and "Oneness". (I prefer 'Oneness' to 'monistic', if it's
>alright by you, the latter suggesting some kind of doctrinal belief. )
>Actually, in my opinion, 'oneness' is implied by 'absolute', since no other
>can be added to what is already absolute. Agreed?
Agreed
>Now, since "immutability" means unalterable and unchangeable, we have
>effectively defined a "static' source. That means it has to create an
>otherness where no other can be added and it must achieve this without
>itself moving or acting. Are you ready to take up this challenge?
Creation is causal so doesn't apply to 'Oneness'
>You throw your cards face-up on the table, suggesting a choice of either
>Quality or Energy as the essence of reality. Smart move! It forces me to
>show my hand. Historically there have been other choices, of course.
>
>[Kindly indulge me a short lecture here]:
<Lecture taken but snipped here>
>So Essence is the absolute, immutable, undifferentiated intentionality
>behind existence. It is the 'intention' or "divine will" of Essence to deny
>all otherness. This inevitably (thank you) leads to creation. By the
>denial or negation of "other" Essence expresses itself as the absolute,
>immutable Not-other. And the "illusion" of experiential reality is a
>differentiated reflection of that negated other. (I like to call the negated
>self the "not" of that other. I also refer to it with Sartre's term
>"negate".)
This has me puzzled. From an Essense PoV there is no other, everyting is a non-other. How then can the denial of otherness be a 'driving force'?
>What if absolute being-aware (in "essential" logic) equals
>Essence "aware of its absoluteness from the perspective of the
>infinitesimal"? Since man's self in effect represents an infinitesimal
>awareness, wouldn't the appearance of man and his infinitesimal perspective
>of Essence as otherness complete the equation?
If it would, would it then not be the case that there has no creation taken place, but what you are descibing is something that is, like essence, not restricted to time and space, but is instead an essential potential. (holding in itself the illusion of not only time and space but also of creation)
>It's the 'two-million dollar question', Reinier. What do you say? If
>you're for "go", we're over the hurdle and the remainder is downhill from
>here. I see you've sent me a later message that will allow me to expand
>this ontology to include value and purpose.
Not sure if we're going down-hill yet, but just enjoying the scenery more and more.
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 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 16:39:53 BST