Greetings, Joe --
> Unfortunately DQ is indefinable, yet basic to metaphysics. Does > metaphysics include mathematics? Yes! Then mathematics in some way > has to be understood metaphorically, when used to describe evolution. > Four levels of evolution is a metaphor. To put semantics outside of > metaphysics is to- mean anything I like. If 1 divided by 0 doesn?t make > sense, would you suggest a better metaphor for the boundaries of > evolution? I can understand your quandary, as I have also gone through this process. Unfortunately numbers won't resolve the riddle of existence. That is, one can't construct an equation, such as 1 divided by 0 = finitude, or infinity divided by infinity = 1, and claim that it represents a metaphysical concept. The point to remember is that mathematics, like logic, is based on man's relational perspective of reality. Physical existence is a relational system in which everything relates to everything else, and the sum total of things is perceived as the Whole. But that perception is not metaphysically valid. The "Whole" -- whether you call it DQ, God, or Essence -- is not a totality of "things", nor is it nothing (zero). It is a source of things (or events), but not the things or events themselves. What I prefer to call Essence transcends "thingness" as well as "process" -- i.e., things evolving in time and space. Therefore, the primary source which the mystics call Oneness does not equate to either the number 1 or zero. Such quantification is meaningless when dealing with the uncreated, non-differentiated metaphysical source. In the 14th century Eckhart taught that "the beginning of multiplicity is negation, but in God there is no deprivation nor yet negation, there is fullness of being." He called this being "Is-ness" to distinguish it from a particular "thing". That is my equivalent of Essence. What Eckhart was saying is that for God to create Difference, "He" negates it. Difference then becomes nothingness with the potential to divide all things perceived in existence. "To create is to give being out of nothing," he asserted. I maintain that this nothing (negate) is Sensibility -- the potential to be-aware of the source by being separated or estranged from it. This can only occur in a relational system where the cognizant agent (subject) is removed from its essential source (object). A century later, Nicholas of Cusa put Eckhart's concept into a logical proposition: the first principle is the "not other" that is the "coincidence" or all otherness. Thus, to create the "appearance of other" which is actualized existence, the One negates (or denies) nothingness, which divides sensible awareness from Is-ness. This actualizes a subjective negate with the capability of realizing the value of its holistic source as a relational world of discrete objects and events. As you can see, mathematics doesn't help us, and conventional logic doesn't really apply. But the intuitive insight of luminaries like Eckhart and Cusanus has given us a handle by which we can get a better grasp of ultimate reality. (For those of us who might want to try.) Thanks for your intriguing question and this opportunity to respond. Best regards, 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/
