One of the things I hear is that we are infinite in the sense that the universe is physically infinite. Whether it is infinite or finite and unbounded is a valid question but I think the infinity that Shakespeare is referring to is not infinite in that sense of the word. It's not infinite in the sense of "big without bound".
The term infinite is a negation but it is a negation of boundaries. The "finis" in the second part of the word is roughly "boundaries". Infinite then becomes without boundaries with the usual meaning a special case. In mathematics the concept of infinity has been separated from the concept of "without boundary" and there are finite and unbounded sets. But here we are speaking in the traditional - pre- topological - sense. One then learns that the process of establishing boundaries is critical in the experience of experience as a space in which there are things. In fact "raising the object from the background" requires that we establish that part of experience that "is" or at least "is something" from that which "is nothing". The boundary is that surface where being ends and nothing begins (or at least another being). That which is not is space - a complete vacuum. This occurs when one interjects nothingness into ones experience. This is why the vacuum is - exactly - nothing. Even though modern physics has moved beyond these concepts superficially it still maintains them albeit in modified form. After all when we proclaim the presence of the so-called vacuum energy we are distinguishing it from a "true" vacuum in the pre- quantum sense. The cessation of that interpretation, and the transcendence beyond space (and time) found fleetingly in mystical experience is the foundation of our immortality, our infinity, and our likeness to god. When space and time cease one experiences the truth that the universe is not distinct from us and in fact, in a sense we include it in us as much as it includes us in it, and one experiences god. Kierkegaard's reference is particularly fascinating. His cataloging of the various modes of despair associated with the various possible relationships of infinity to the finite in us presumes a kind of identity that unifies the infinite and the finite in a sense. As the proverb says: "At first I saw a tree and it was a tree, then I saw a tree and it was the Tao, then I saw the tree and it was a tree." Ultimately, we are who we are with all of the finite limitations of our biology. We are a particular person with particular talents and capabilities. Yet we have this capacity to interpret our life in a sacred and not profane way. Kierkegaard's analysis of despair as sin, especially his analysis of what he calls demonic despair, the despair that is lucid and deliberate is most interesting. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall of Hitler's mind to see if his "banality" was superficial and to find out whether in fact he was not completely aware but so totally in despair that he deliberately caused such suffering. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that he choose the Jews as the object of his hatred. Perhaps, at root it was hatred of god. Perhaps he wanted to be chosen and felt he was not. His relative asceticism, as compared to the orgy of indulgence in some of his supporters, seems to indicate that his soul was aware at some level. Ultimately it is not for us to judge but it would be interesting to know. It would have been equally interesting to be in Martin Luther King's mind when he went through his own motel-room Gethsemane. I wonder how he overcame his own despair and went on living the life he did when he could have just quit and had fun with the women around him instead of accepting the bullet. So I think this issue is at heart the issue of an interpretation of our experience and when the ratio of those who have been enlightened to those who have not becomes high enough (if it ever does) perhaps we will then be able to face the real questions and not waste time quibbling over fundamentalist interpretations. The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct but whether the alternative to them is viable. n Feb 10, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > “Give me my robe, put on my crown; I have Immortal longings in me,” > Shakespeare instructs us. But do we? Is there a part of us that is > infinite, or is immortality just a longing? There are at least parts > of our beings that are infinite, according to Shakespeare: “What a > piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in > faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how > like an angel, in apprehension how like a god.” > > Our infinite nature is not just fodder for the poets. Einstein came > to the conclusion that “the infinite nature of man includes the > universe.” Kierkegaard explained our existence in this way: “Man is a > synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the > eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short a synthesis. A synthesis > is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a > self.” > > What do YOU think? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
