> [Krimel] > Ok, lets stick with the statement that I might actually understand: "From > the perspective of Essence evolution is a fait accompli." I take this to > mean that you think time is fixed and absolute. Then you say the source is > timeless as through time does not exist at all. Which is it?
DM: Maybe Ham is saying that what is changing and subject to time can only be made sense of in the context of a greater whole (perhaps only a conceptual whole or maybe more) where everything that can become actual is already possible. Where everything is already possible there would be no time. We understand the actual as the coming and going of what is possible in a realm with location/space and order/time. Our understanding of the actual only makes sense through our conception of this larger whole where everything possible is available as a source to populate the finite realm/sphere of the actual. Is evolution a bridge between the possible and the actual, touching at certain points (& them moving on), making a certain subset of the possible actual at any given time and place. The 'everything that is possible' sphere never changes, how could it? There it sat at the big bang waiting to populate our cosmos, there it sits now unchanged and nowhere and immaterial, populating the actual with its current needs, and accepting the trash patterns that are no longer wanted. Such is the becoming and begoing of patterns. The source is nothing, vast enough to create and absorb any number of universes. Such is DQ, quite incomprehensible as Ham seems to prove on a daily basis. Is DQ so vast? Well it never seems to fail us and let us down, the DQ just keeps coming does it not? The awesomeness of DQ is actually something we can experience as the inconceivability of our finite cosmos. Kant's sublime you might say. For me, metaphysics is poetry for those who really do make an effort to examine and make sense of experience. I don't like talk of the logic and reason of metaphysics as if we could do without experience to give us the problems that our metaphysical-poetry is trying to express. Perhaps if we don't dig Ham we think he is a bad poet or a bad witness. But its going to depend on your own tastes and experiences. David M Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
