[David];
> 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?
Well put, David. You've expanded my answer to Krimel further than I dared
to go. However, I don't think we really have a conception of the Whole
("absolute potentiality"), hence can only speculate as to the consequences
of a divided manifestation of "absoluteness". For example, your assertion
"...where everything is possible there would be no time" is challengeable,
unless you change it to read "where everything that is possible is
actualized".
In other words, I prefer to keep ontogeny (creation) as simple as possible,
since any descriptive analysis of an already controversial concept is
inviting criticism. Suffice it to say that existence is an experienced
"reduction" of absolute potentiality in which temporal process and
dimensionality are conditions of the experience. The fundamental principle
is that existence is a "being-aware" dichotomy whose mutually exclusive
contingents are held together by the value that separates them.
This, I think, is paradoxical enough for now, without getting into
ontological differences between Essence and DQ.
I also take exception to your statement:
> The source is nothing, vast enough to create and absorb
> any number of universes.
"Nothing" is the wrong term to describe the absolute source of even one
universe.
> 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.
"Awesomeness" and "vastness" are expressions of Value, not experiential
reality. We can avoid confusion by distinguishing what we "sense" as Value
from what we "experience" as objective reality. In my opinion, much of the
misinterpretation of Pirsig and James is due to their failure to make this
distinction. Again, Experience is being-aware (cognizance of otherness);
Value is proprietary sensibility (the copula in being-aware).
I appreciate your encouragement and insight, David.
(By the way, isn't it time we changed the title of this thread?)
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
