Iolaus wrote:I suppose that there are discontinuities within the unity of being. That is, not a discontinuity in being itself, but rather those essential qualities that cause any particular thing to be recognizable to the mind. After all, at the beginning of this thread we discussed the two ways in which a thing may be constituted - the quality and the relation.
Yes, this is precisely what we have said; and now one needs only to see the logical implications of what has been said.
We have said that being (that which is) is existentially one and indivisible, and so it follows that all ‘beings’ (existents) must participate equally in this one Being, for a thing either exists or it does not - there being no intermediate alternative.
Still, there is at least the appearance of separate (independent) existents, for things appear to hold together and move about as though they were true entities (separate existents).
Nevertheless, we know that it cannot be in their ‘existential being’ that things differ one from another, and so it follows that there must be a second mode being – which we have called ‘essential being’.
We then proceeded to analyze the two possible modes of being (absolute and relative), with the intent of discerning the relationship which held between them, for given that all things (beings) are existentially one, it follows that the two modes must be related.
It was then determined that given that the absolute mode could relate only to it own intrinsic causes (internally), and the relative mode, only to its extrinsic causes (externally), that the relationship between the two modes was analogous of a ‘container’ (absolute) and its ‘content’ (relative).
This relationship (principle or law) is the “Law of Identity”, the first principle of Thought; that a things is the same with its self (existentially), but different from another (essentially).
I, however, prefer to call it the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’, for neither mode can partake of an independent existence, and the two modes complete one another in that universe of discourse we call ‘Being’.
A thorough examination of this peculiar principle will unlock all of the doors that are necessary to our understanding the cognizant nature of reality. For example, because the two modes are ‘complementary’, whatever may be predicated of one mode, cannot be predicated of the other; and so if we claim that one of the modes is ‘real’, for instance, then the other is necessarily ‘not real’; or if we claim that one is ‘aware’, then the other is ‘not aware’; and the same is true of all such complementary dichotomies including good an evil (not good).
So, it is now only a matter of determining which of the two modes of being is the principle or superior mode, and which the inferior; that is to say, which is real and which is not.
That which is dependent upon other things for its existence (relative) cannot be the superior mode, for the things on which is it is dependent must precede it, and the things upon which those things exist must precede them, etc., etc., ad infinitum. However, this is not possible, for to be infinite is to be unfinished, but if a thing is existent, then regardless of whether it causes exist intrinsically or extrinsically, they must all exist, and so we cannot say that any existent thing is unfinished – so far as it is what it is.
Therefore, all things, given that they have only a relative existence, are not real, but only appear to be so; but if they appear to be so, then there must be that to which they appear, and this ‘subject awareness’ must of the absolute mode of being.
My understanding is that at bottom, not only is there only one being, but also only one substance. Therefore, we can say of a horse or a chair that it is illusory, because it is a coming together of shadows that makes the one substance take on the relational characteristics we call horse. My question then, is not so much "why is a horse an illusion?" but "in what way is the horse also real?"
You must understand, I hesitate to use the term ‘substance’ because it tacitly implies that somewhere within (sub) a thing there is that which is real, and this is simply not the case. Therefore, I use the term ‘essence’ in its place, but it must be understood that this ‘essence’ is neither real nor fixed; but exists in a state of constant flux. You might say that it is a ‘becoming’, rather than a ‘being’.
Please note that above I am agreeing that being is single and continuous! As to whether material things are every bit as illusory as my dreams, I am not sure. There is this tremendous consistency of method by which the Source produces materiality. It follows laws, and there seem to be consistent ways in which particles are configured or move so as to create the elements.
Indeed, it is with perfect consistency that world unfolds, for it is in accordance with a single inviolable law, the Law of Identity – the universal law of causality. However, things are not built up from simpler things, as the appear to be, for if things (relative entities) are not real, then it follows that they cannot be the real causes of anything.
That may very well be. But what sort of previously existing knowledge? Previous to what?
Since knowledge and awareness are interdependent, and neither can exist without the other, it is clear that there must have always been knowledge, but this knowledge is not fixed, but is constantly evolving. To the sentient being, who partakes of only a relative existence, this evolving store of knowledge has the appearance of an objective universe; but the objects that inhabit this universe are not real – just as the objects in our dreams are not real.
That is quite interesting, that they use the very same word to denote the two modes of being. There is a clue in this.
Indeed!
What is the law?
The Law of Identity or Principle of Interdependent Complementarity.