From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 21:09:33 BST
Hello David (Reinier mentioned) --
My question to Reinier was somewhat rhetorical, as I knew what his answer
would be.
> Perhaps I should have asked, can there be Actuality (existence) without
> Potentiality (Essence)?
You commented:
> Well this is an important distinction for me, but
> actuality/potentia is good for me, no great need for
> existence/essence. All potential has to
> exist, but of course it does not all become actual
> and being a human being clearly involves both.
By way of introduction to this issue, Reinier and I have established Essence
and existence as two modes of Reality. (You would probably equate them with
DQ and SQ. respectively.) What we are trying to do with Cusa's 'Coincidence
of Opposites' is to identify Actuality with existence and Potentiality with
Essence. Reinier is of the opinion that Actuality is always present in
Essence as an immutable principle or "constant", while my own view is that
it is only present in actuality (existence).
You say that there is no need for an existence/essence distinction. My
argument (same as Cusa's) is that nothing in existence can bring itself into
being, which necessitates a primary source that is not itself differentiated
but represents the "coincidence" of contrariety. This source (Essence) can
be understood as Potentiality, which has a specific connotation relative to
Actuality: i.e., Essence itself is uncreated but has the potential to exist
(or to become actualized). But what is actualized does not have the
potential to create itself.
You say:
> DQ is the movement of a possible into the actual,
> where the actual is ...a subset of the possible, so what
> is this actual? Well its a realm where certain things that
> were once possible have been made nothing in relation
> to the actual.
If you remove the notion of time from this statement (and your Smarty
analogy) you'll see that possibility (free choice) and actuality (finite
being) are both present in your existence. In other words, the concept
"once possible" is essentially the same as "now actual". So what you've
defined as possibility is not equivalent to Potentiality which is the power
"to create". Your choice between two options does not bring those options
into existence.
You continue:
> Next, what about awareness? Seems to me that awareness
> is very tied to the possible. Without the possible what
> would be the point/meaning of awareness?. Awareness
> is clearly in part the solution to the problem of the possible,
> for aware-agency knows what is possible (a very special
> sort of experiencing) and can choose which possible
> will become actual.
You stopped short of defining awareness, and returned to your analysis of
the possible/actual dichotomy.
Awareness is the actualized subjective consciousness which perceives
differences, such as options. In order for the individual to be a "free
agent" it cannot perceive the result of a decision prior to exercising its
free choice. But the result is still part of existence, just as all future
events are part of existence. The only difference between what happened
yesterday and what will happen tomorrow is that we've experienced the former
but have not experienced the latter. Because it is finite, human experience
proceeeds incrementally along a time line, sensing all objects and events as
differentiated from each other. Ultimate reality (Essence) is not like
that: it is the undivided, non-sequential, non-dimensional Potential.
> Clearly DQ incorporates such awareness-agency in its
> activity. There is also awareness of the SQ we are (in part)
> and are surrounded by. This awareness seems to be
> driven by the way the surrounding SQ is either good or bad
> for the SQ that we are (in part, the extra part being that
> we are inseparable from DQ too).
I generally agree with your Value thesis (SQ "goodness and badness");
however, I don't consider Essence an "active" force or entity. To me the
duality is best expressed as Unity vs. Differentiation. I see the primary
difference as the negation ("denial") of nothingness, the cosmic divider of
all things.
But I like your reasoning, David. If it is of interest, Reinier and I are
open to suggestions for a Creation ontology under the subject heading
"Looking for the Primary Difference".
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 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 22:01:03 BST