The Fundamental Unity of Being

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

There is no greater universe of discourse than is that which we call “being”, for whether a thing is perceived through the senses, or whether it is perceived through that mental faculty we call the imagination, such a thing necessarily exists, for it stands before the mind – as its object. For this reason, we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist, that is to say, not anything that may be designated or defined.

Every designation, in order that it be meaningful, must have a definition: an expression of the essence of the thing signified by the designation; the essence of a thing being that unique set of qualities or characteristics which make the thing “what it is”, and not something else.

A designation which has no associated definition, is meaningless as a linguistic element, for it evokes no quality or characteristics in the mind of the listener. But even such a designation as this cannot be said to be non-existent, but merely meaningless; for as we do not know what sort of thing the designation signifies, we cannot say that such a thing does not exist.

Likewise, a definition that does not have an associated designation, is equally meaningless as a linguistic element, for there is no way that the qualities or characteristics of the definition may be evoked in the mind of the listener, except by their individual enumeration, and then the listener can only say whether or not they are familiar with such a thing, but not that such a thing does not exist.

Therefore, if a thing were truly non-existent, it could have neither a designation nor a definition, and so would be utterly inexpressible. Consequently, such a thing could neither be perceived nor thought about (imagined).
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Just as when there is everywhere nothing but water, we cannot say that there is a multitude of separate bodies of water, but a singular and continuous body of water; just so when there is everywhere only being, we cannot say that there is a multiplicity of separate beings, but a singular and continuous being. It follows then that in whatever manner one sort of thing differs from another, it in not in its 'existential being' (existence), which is in everything the same both in its quality and its quantity. Therefore, being is the one “universal predicate”, and as such, cannot be used to differentiate one thing from another.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by divine focus »

Jehu wrote: Therefore, being is the one “universal predicate”, and as such, cannot be used to differentiate one thing from another.
Then, the question is what is used to differentiate one thing from another, and what is its relationship to being? It's funny how being can't differentiate, but I can differentiate only by being aware of it. Without it, there would be nothing to differentiate or make sense of.

Some things only make sense, even when not "understood."
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

I think the string theorists have it right - at bottom all things are made up of only one substance, therefore there is a sea of continuous being and all is equality. But what differentiates one thing from another is some way of either vibrating or otherwise taking shape so as to create elements and so forth, some thicker and some thinner, some with membranes to encase an ego consciousness. But all is interpenetrating.

There is no paradox.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

divine focus wrote:Then, the question is what is used to differentiate one thing from another, and what is its relationship to being? It's funny how being can't differentiate, but I can differentiate only by being aware of it. Without it, there would be nothing to differentiate or make sense of.
Yes, this is the very question we must ask ourselves.

If we cannot differentiate between things based upon their “existential being”, then it follows that there must be at least one other ‘mode of being’. Further, it follows that this other mode of being must be related to existential being, for we have already shown that the realm of being is fundamentally unified.

We differentiate between different sorts of things, based upon variations in that unique set of essential characteristics which make each thing “what it is”. These “essential characteristics” are individually called the “elements” of the thing, while collectively, they are called its “essence”. For this reason, we may say that in addition to its having an “existential aspect” (that it is), each thing also has an “essential aspect” (what it is); and together, these two comprise the nature of the thing. Hence, the nature of a thing may be said to be two-fold or dyadic.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Dave Toast »

What are these essential charateristics that make up the essence of a thing though? What is their nature?

Do you think you could provide an exhaustive list comprising this collective for any particular thing I might name?
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Dave Toast wrote:What are these essential charateristics that make up the essence of a thing though? What is their nature?

Do you think you could provide an exhaustive list comprising this collective for any particular thing I might name?
That would depend upon whether you are speaking of a class of thing, or a particular instance of thing. If you are speaking in terms of classes, then a “definition” would constitute an expression of the essence of the thing, but in the case of a particular instance of thing, a fuller description would be necessary, but how exhaustive a description would depend upon one’s needs. For example, the definition of a bicycle would entail only such characteristics as are necessary and sufficient to a thing’s being a bicycle, that is to say, two wheels, a frame, handlebars, peddles, a set of gears, a chain, etc. A description of my bicycle, on the other hand, would entail such additional characteristics as the manufacturer and model, the paint colour and condition, the state of wear on the tires, whether it has a bell or not, and a myriad of other identifying features - right down to its present spatio-temporal location.

As to the nature of these essential characteristics, that is what I am intending to examine in this enquiry.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Dave Toast »

But isn't that just a case of sufficent characteristics, whether you're talking about abstractions or particulars? Car can be sufficiently defined quite easily and my car with just a few additions.

If you're talking about necessary characteristics though, the list would surely be infinite, for both abstractions and particulars? It's just as hard to define the necessary characteristics of Art as it is Beethoven's 5th.

And aren't both the sufficient nature and the necessary nature of essential characteristics going to end up in an infinite regress?
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by mikiel »

Jehu:
------------------
"There is no greater universe of discourse than is that which we call “being”, for whether a thing is perceived through the senses, or whether it is perceived through that mental faculty we call the imagination, such a thing necessarily exists, for it stands before the mind – as its object. For this reason, we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist, that is to say, not anything that may be designated or defined.

Every designation, in order that it be meaningful, must have a definition: an expression of the essence of the thing signified by the designation; the essence of a thing being that unique set of qualities or characteristics which make the thing “what it is”, and not something else. "
--------------------
Jehu,
I suggest that "things," whether perceived through the senses or mental objects, do not constitute "the fundamental unity of being."
Rather than designations and definitions of specific "things" (mental or physical) the most fundamental and universal "unity of being" is the totality of "all there is" as One Cosmic Being Whose body is the manifest cosmos and whose consciousness is omnipresent and transcends all manifestation. (The universal "I Am" in all.)

This is gnosis, the basis of my site, Conscious Unity (.org)

Respectfully,
mikiel
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Dave Toast wrote:But isn't that just a case of sufficent characteristics, whether you're talking about abstractions or particulars? Car can be sufficiently defined quite easily and my car with just a few additions.

If you're talking about necessary characteristics though, the list would surely be infinite, for both abstractions and particulars? It's just as hard to define the necessary characteristics of Art as it is Beethoven's 5th.

And aren't both the sufficient nature and the necessary nature of essential characteristics going to end up in an infinite regress?
Clearly, both definitions (classes) and descriptions (particulars), each of which constitute an expression of the essence of a thing, are only as exhaustive as they are required to be, depending upon their purpose. However, the point is that in terms of identity and difference, if there is anything at all that may be predicated of one thing, that cannot be predicated of another, then these are two different things, and not one and the same thing.

As to whether or not these essential characteristics must constitute an infinite regress, is entirely dependent upon their nature. If will view these elements as real (absolute) and independently existing entities, then they might well constitute an infinite regress. However, if we view them as merely apparent (relative) entities, then they need only extend so far as the limits of our ability to differentiate them further.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

mikiel wrote:Jehu,
I suggest that "things," whether perceived through the senses or mental objects, do not constitute "the fundamental unity of being."
Rather than designations and definitions of specific "things" (mental or physical) the most fundamental and universal "unity of being" is the totality of "all there is" as One Cosmic Being Whose body is the manifest cosmos and whose consciousness is omnipresent and transcends all manifestation. (The universal "I Am" in all.)

This is gnosis, the basis of my site, Conscious Unity (.org)

Respectfully,
mikiel
I fully agreed that there is but one existential being, and that all things necessarily participate in this one being. As to the remainder of your statement, it may be that you are entirely correct, and that the nature of this being is essentially cognizant, however, I would prefer to see if we cannot reason our way to the truth, rather than prematurely adopt one theory or another.

I hope you will accompany us in our enquiry, for many minds will help ensure that we do not fall into error.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Sapius »

Jehu: Just as when there is everywhere nothing but water, we cannot say that there is a multitude of separate bodies of water, but a singular and continuous body of water; just so when there is everywhere only being, we cannot say that there is a multiplicity of separate beings, but a singular and continuous being.
Sounds reasonable, but I would like to know how “everywhere nothing but water” is possible to begin with, and what sort of awareness would be required to know “there is everywhere nothing but water”, if there were “nothing BUT water” that is?
---------
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Sapius wrote:
Jehu: Just as when there is everywhere nothing but water, we cannot say that there is a multitude of separate bodies of water, but a singular and continuous body of water; just so when there is everywhere only being, we cannot say that there is a multiplicity of separate beings, but a singular and continuous being.
Sounds reasonable, but I would like to know how “everywhere nothing but water” is possible to begin with, and what sort of awareness would be required to know “there is everywhere nothing but water”, if there were “nothing BUT water” that is?
This was a purely hypothetical example, and was meant only to illustrate the fact that a thing cannot partition itself from itself. That is to say, if we wish to assert that two things of the same class are separate things, there must be something of another class which separates them.
windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by windhawk »

Jehu:
------------------
"There is no greater universe of discourse than is that which we call “being”, for whether a thing is perceived through the senses, or whether it is perceived through that mental faculty we call the imagination, such a thing necessarily exists, for it stands before the mind – as its object. For this reason, we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist, that is to say, not anything that may be designated or defined.

Every designation, in order that it be meaningful, must have a definition: an expression of the essence of the thing signified by the designation; the essence of a thing being that unique set of qualities or characteristics which make the thing “what it is”, and not something else. "
--------------------

This is a rather eloquent exposition of the Ontological proof for the existence of God. St. Thomas Aquinas spent a good bit of time disproving this thesis, and I think he was correct, at least from a Western perspective. See for instance, his insistence on the Revelation of God. Kant, of course, completely disavowed anything even approaching this as the catagories were not noumenal apprehensions, but a method of describing phenomena.

Kant left open a door, which I've seen cause professors to cringe, the case of the "synthetic a priori judgements."

"Being as revealed as truth," as Martin Heidegger defines it before his "turn" becomes his thing-in-itself, or the noumenal (Kant: Ding an sich) becoming in the world.

I like Heidegger, but Nietzsche's critique of Kant in "Beyond Good & Evil" is most revealing, and puts the question of Faith back on the front burner:

"It is high time to replace the Kantian question, 'How are synthetic judgments a priori?' by another question, 'Why is belief in such judgments necessary?'--in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments! Or, more plainly spoken, [...] synthetic judgments a priori should not "be possible" at all..."

Just a thought, but what happens if the theory that "information is the ultimate substance of the universe" is true? Then "Being is revealed as truth," becomes not only meaningfull but so does the application of rational predicates to God, as information and the noumenal are one-and-the-same. Karl Popper's "Conjecture and Refutation," becomes redundant because the problem of inductive reasoning is gone.

It also means that, "Nihilism is dead." However, it's still fun to read books full of crazy aphroisms.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

windhawk wrote:Just a thought, but what happens if the theory that "information is the ultimate substance of the universe" is true? Then "Being is revealed as truth," becomes not only meaningfull but so does the application of rational predicates to God, as information and the noumenal are one-and-the-same. Karl Popper's "Conjecture and Refutation," becomes redundant because the problem of inductive reasoning is gone.

It also means that, "Nihilism is dead." However, it's still fun to read books full of crazy aphroisms.
An intriguing question, however, before we adopt any theories, would it not serve us better to enquire into the matter for ourselves? Where do you stand on the question of existential unity, do you accept that reason dictates a fundamental oneness being?
windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by windhawk »

Absolutely.

All is one.

You can make friends in many places of the world by simply saying so.

It must be remembered that we in the West have only been able to reclaim an authentic description of our own philosophy of Plato & Aristotle, (well, Plotinus, Augustine, Thomas and Decarte), not to neglect the Mad Germans, because of Islam.

They were kind enough to transmit to us via Avincena our own sense of existence.

We owe them a large debt; they know it, and as soon as we ask them to forgo this debt, it will be gone.

Being is an essential transcendent apprehension of Truth.

All is one. The many is our burden.

One more bit of the Romans (Latin): "Esse qua esse bonum est."

Being, for the sake of being, is good.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

These “essential characteristics” are individually called the “elements” of the thing, while collectively, they are called its “essence”. For this reason, we may say that in addition to its having an “existential aspect” (that it is), each thing also has an “essential aspect” (what it is); and together, these two comprise the nature of the thing. Hence, the nature of a thing may be said to be two-fold or dyadic.
What does it mean, 'to exist'? Might it not be so that the essential elements of a thing and its existence are one and the same? Mightn't the appearance of the dyadic nature of things be illusory? Why do you have a phrase beneath your posts of Not Two?

I'm waiting for you to explain this two modes of being, but I sense you want to get there step by step.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:What does it mean, 'to exist'? Might it not be so that the essential elements of a thing and its existence are one and the same? Mightn't the appearance of the dyadic nature of things be illusory? Why do you have a phrase beneath your posts of Not Two?

I'm waiting for you to explain this two modes of being, but I sense you want to get there step by step.
Yes, you are absolutely right, I do want to proceed “step by step”; for otherwise, I will be putting forth merely one more theory. And having done so, people will merely accept it or reject it. But this is not the path to true knowledge, this is the path of opinion.

As to the two modes of being, I have only been waiting for someone to ask; and the meaning of “Not Two”, I assure you, will become evident as we proceed.

That thing which has a distinct existence, as apposed to a quality or relation, is called an “entity”, and every entity comprises at least one quality and one relation. Matter, for example, is said to comprise “mass” (quality) and “extension” (relation). It is the qualities or characteristics that render the thing perceptible to the senses, but it is the relation embodied within these characteristics that the mind recognizes as being a particular class or instance of thing.

Quality and relation then may be said to partake of an interdependent and complementary relationship, for nothing can be said to exist (i.e., be perceived or imagined) except that it possess both a quality and a relation, and so these two aspects may be said to ‘complete one another’ in the entity itself. For example, every perceptible colour (quality) must have a spatial distribution (relation), even though that distribution may be of an indeterminate form such as: a blob, smudge, smear, or the like.

Further, there are only two possible ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence; there being no intermediate alternative. By “causes” I mean that which is necessary and sufficient to the things being what it is, and these causes must be of two sorts, those which account for the things ‘existential being’(that it is), and those which account for its ‘essential being’ (what it is).

Now, as we know that there are at least two modes of being, and given that there are only two possible ways in which an entity (being) may be constituted, it follows that existential being must be constituted in one of these two ways, and essential being in the other. What’s more, it follows that the two modes of being must be complementary, for the two must complete one another in that highest universe of discourse – Being.
windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by windhawk »

I am truly not being frivolous when I propose that "information" might be the ultimate constituent of being (let's assume a capital "B").

What, perhaps, might be a more fundamental expression of Being?

Substance, essence, quality, emanation, a will to live, a will to power?

Perhaps, a damned old perseverance to persevere?

The important issues in life tell us nothing more than "I" exists; but we doubt that, and live with a wish to have "more"...

My wife; my Father; my Mother; my children; my God; my Faith; my insistence on rational order.

In comparison, the issues of science are mere child play. But, of course, the Scientists don't have to deal with this.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Hello Jehu,

Well, count me in for the long haul. I'm definitely interested in where you're going with this. You do almost talk over my head. Have you taken formal courses in western philosophy? I sometimes lose a bit of patience with excess formalism, and you have said that you do not want intuitive leaps. Do you at least respect the fact that many an intuitive leap turns out right and leads to the same place as the painstaking steps?

Personally, I find them at least as reliable, especially, if they're mine! But never mind, this is your thread...

I'm going back through your posts to try to tie these concepts down a bit, and I found this:
Therefore, if a thing were truly non-existent, it could have neither a designation nor a definition, and so would be utterly inexpressible. Consequently, such a thing could neither be perceived nor thought about (imagined).
Which is quite interesting to ponder, because really it means there is no such thing as nonexistence. Perhaps that strays from the topic at hand...
If we cannot differentiate between things based upon their “existential being”, then it follows that there must be at least one other ‘mode of being’. Further, it follows that this other mode of being must be related to existential being, for we have already shown that the realm of being is fundamentally unified.
This is, I think, essentially advaita. Or content and context. Being is context, things are content.

Windhawk-

For what it's worth, I do not believe information is the ultimate substance of being, yet it is indeed very close to the core. I could even agree that information and existence are all but synonymous - yet the final quality of Being, I mean existentially, seems an utter mystery to me.

I'd say information is what allows, causes, the dyadic aspect of existence. In order to have 'things' you must have information. Or, information is how undifferentiated existence becomes entities.

Back to Jehu-

I'm having a little trouble with quality and relation. For example, why is the 'extension' of matter a relation?
Further, there are only two possible ways in which an entity may be constituted: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence; there being no intermediate alternative. By “causes” I mean that which is necessary and sufficient to the things being what it is, and these causes must be of two sorts, those which account for the things ‘existential being’(that it is), and those which account for its ‘essential being’ (what it is).
Well now, this is why I say that the existential nature of Being is an utter mystery and this is why there has to be a God. For you cannot get something from nothing, and yet there must be something possessed of of the astonishing ability to exist intrinsically. I cannot fathom it.
Now, as we know that there are at least two modes of being, and given that there are only two possible ways in which an entity (being) may be constituted, it follows that existential being must be constituted in one of these two ways, and essential being in the other. What’s more, it follows that the two modes of being must be complementary, for the two must complete one another in that highest universe of discourse – Being.


I am having some trouble equating the mass and extent of a marble, which do complement each other but are both ordinary sense material, with the two modes of being, intrinsic and extrinsic. That would mean that the mass of the marble is intrinsic, and that brings me right back to my original problem - how does that marble exist. Why does it exist? It's not the forming into marbles, but the existence of matter that puzzles me.
Truth is a pathless land.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

I've got it! Information is the Son of God.
Truth is a pathless land.
windhawk
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:47 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by windhawk »

What other possible manifestation of Being, but also being & stuff is there? The Germans, if they teach us anything, is that their odd language may be better disposed to describing these "situations" better than English or French... a rather ungainly triumph, perhaps an argument for the preservation for all languages? A native German understands us both better than we might think.

Logos. Literally: "word" as:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " (K.J.V.)

That is information. So, No; not the Son of God, but the Spirit. The Greeks had a fascination with concept of Logos, and it has carried on in Western culture. Perhaps, better understood as a "Spirit that informs the World," or the rational underpinnings of it. The Christian unity of a tri-patriarch God (from Nicea: Father, Son & the Holy Ghost), is interesting, but maybe not on target here.

Information. Inform of the form: constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation. (def: Wiki)

Suddenly, we are confronted with the language of the past, which was the intention of these fella's (Good and Bad). "To the things themselves!"

Does a Black Hole leak? Yes, and it broke Hawking's heart. A black hole leaks information, that is, information which identifies a single particle that was lost, and now is found.

A particle that mimics the son (son, small "ess") who was lost...

"Know thyself," is but half the story.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by brokenhead »

Iolaus wrote:Well now, this is why I say that the existential nature of Being is an utter mystery and this is why there has to be a God. For you cannot get something from nothing, and yet there must be something possessed of of the astonishing ability to exist intrinsically. I cannot fathom it.
Doesn't it sound simple? And clear? Now go and convince Kevin and David.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by bert »

jehu:
Now, as we know that there are at least two modes of being, and given that there are only two possible ways in which an entity (being) may be constituted, it follows that existential being must be constituted in one of these two ways, and essential being in the other. What’s more, it follows that the two modes of being must be complementary, for the two must complete one another in that highest universe of discourse – Being.


by bert on Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:27 am


the phenomenal is a necessity.
creating a necessity is our quality of being of practical use.
"I desire" is life,desires are born of necessity; by striving for realization and sincerity of belief (and the lord of the Will is the command to obey),although they are always channelling as the fictional supposition from reality;so that Man's conceptions are made from his conception of a soul.
- from his wish for one, and he becomes his mental flesh. 'as if' ultimately becomes its own reality, but you will never know it as your creation
complexity is in that Man already possessed a Soul,
and formed his other from his suppositions.
so there is no chance of disentangling the two - Ego's 'twiceness'.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by mikiel »

Jehu wrote:
mikiel wrote:Jehu,
I suggest that "things," whether perceived through the senses or mental objects, do not constitute "the fundamental unity of being."
Rather than designations and definitions of specific "things" (mental or physical) the most fundamental and universal "unity of being" is the totality of "all there is" as One Cosmic Being Whose body is the manifest cosmos and whose consciousness is omnipresent and transcends all manifestation. (The universal "I Am" in all.)

This is gnosis, the basis of my site, Conscious Unity (.org)

Respectfully,
mikiel
I fully agreed that there is but one existential being, and that all things necessarily participate in this one being. As to the remainder of your statement, it may be that you are entirely correct, and that the nature of this being is essentially cognizant, however, I would prefer to see if we cannot reason our way to the truth, rather than prematurely adopt one theory or another.

I hope you will accompany us in our enquiry, for many minds will help ensure that we do not fall into error.
I would not call gnosis a "premature" adoption of "one theory or another."
It is the mode of knowing through direct identity transcending in-form-ation (the realm of manifestation.) This remains a complete mystery to philosopjhers and scientists alike until they discover the "portal" of transcendental consciousness and eventually gnosis, enlightenment itself.
Enjoying the thread, tho. Well informed philosophy here... and the science of black holes (as a metaphore)... one of me deep interests. (I actually debunked Hawking... on Myspace... on singularity theory as a no-volume, infinite mass-density "point" of cosmic origin... several monts before he "recanted" and joined forces with the string/ M-theory camp. An I said that Hawking radiation is all in hawking's brilliant mind, long before I found others of better credentials than mine who agreed.... but this is off topic, and I gotta go.) Back later this eve.
mikiel
Locked