From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 05:13:49 BST
Scott and David --
If I may intercede here, gentlemen...
We all seem to be picking up on potentiality and actuality of late, and I
think there are two ways of defining what is "actual", just as there are two
ways of defining reality. In a sense both of you are correct.
When Scott asserts that "imaginings are actual, not potential", he is
referring to what happens in existence. Since existence is defined by
experience, he is using "actual" to denote not only the objects and events
experienced in the physical world, but also thoughts and concepts which are
experienced reflections of that world. In that sense, the division is not
between the mental and the physical, but between (ultimate) reality and
existence.
David, on the other hand, is using "potential" as applied to the free choice
each of us enjoys to make decisions. Thus, he can choose to cross the
street or not cross the street; he can turn left or right, etc. That is HIS
potential as an "actualized" free agent. It is not, however -- as I think
Scott recognizes -- the potential that is primary to David's existence (or
his experience of reality). And that's where the confusion arises.
I don't know whether either of you have been influenced by my discussion
with Reinier concerning Cusa's 'Coincidence of contradictions theory'. This
applies only to 'the first principle' (could be Quality or Essence), and it
asserts that the potential for contrariety is the essence of this primary
principle or source. (At least, that is my interpretation.)
Therefore, if you reject the concept of a primary source (as I suspect David
does), you will see potential only in terms of human choices or the
evolutionary "possibilities" of Nature. To avoid such confusion, I have
suggested that we refer to the differentiated, transitional world of
experienced things and thoughts as "existence", and the uncreated, immutable
ground of experience as "reality" -- or "ultimate reality".
Whether "potential/actual" can be successfully "aligned with" DQ/SQ, as
Scott suggests, is a question for you and other MoQers to answer.
Hope this helps.
Essentially yours,
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 : Thu Sep 29 2005 - 05:37:08 BST