On 7/2/11 3:18 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> I do not deny evolution. But since it's only the mode of existence, not its
> source, why should I equate "one" or unity with evolution? Oneness applies
> only to the Absolute Source, where it defines metaphysical reality rather
> than a numerical integer. I had always assumed that my correspondents
> existed too. But, as you deny your individuality, I guess I've been talking
> to the social or intellectual level instead of a human individual named Joe.
> (No wonder I've had so much difficulty communicating with you!)
>
> Thanks for the sarcastic sympathy anyway, Joe, whatever you are.
Hi Ham,
I certainly apologize for mistaking a mode modification in essence to
describe existence, for the reality of evolution. I wonder how I would know
such a marvel that existence is a modal reality of essence.
I guess it was an assumption that levels in existence is a more defined and
therefore clearer way of describing reality in evolution rather than modes
of essence to which we attach the word evolution. How can I distinguish
modes of essence from pure essence?
How can I describe Evolution, then as modes in essence? I admit I do have
more difficulty seeing the reality of a rock and an aware individual
sentient as modes in essence rather than as different levels in existence.
Joe
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/md/archives.html
