Iolaus wrote: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...
Perhaps, but then we can never be certain; at least, not until we have reasoned it through.
Iolaus wrote: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...
Yes, this is precisely what it means: non-existence is by its very definition “non-existent”. It is only be force of habit that we use the term, for it signifies nothing and can be defined only in terms of what it “is not”.
Iolaus wrote:I'm having a little trouble with quality and relation. For example, why is the 'extension' of matter a relation?
When we speak of “extension”, we mean that the quality in question (e.g., mass) is distributed spatially, and as anything that may be distributed must necessarily entail some sort of components, these components must then stand in a relationship to one another. It is this embodied relationship (form) that the mind recognizes, and to which is assigns a name. This will become clearer as we examine the two possible modes of being.
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.
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.
Let me see if I can't shed some light on it - step by step. First, it is vital to understand that there are only ‘two’ possible modes of being, and that these two modes cannot exist independently (separately); for the reasons I have already stated. Hence, the two modes stand in a relationship which we shall call the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’; that is to say, each mode is dependent upon the other mode for its existence, and the two modes complete one another in that universe of discourse which we have called Being. This principle differs from the mathematical ‘Principle of Complementarity’ in one essential aspect: the two complementary elements have no existence independent of one another. In other words, although the nature of being is dyadic (two-fold), it is not dualistic; that is to say, it does not comprise two independent principles (not two). Now, as to the two possible modes of being:
That entity which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes partakes of a ‘necessary’ (absolute) being, for if its intrinsic causes exist, then too must the entity itself necessarily exist; it causes constituting that which is necessary and sufficient to its existence. An absolute entity, if such an entity exists, must then have always existed, for an absolute entity cannot arise or cease or undergo any sort of alteration whatsoever. Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both. Consequently, an absolute entity may be said to be ‘unbounded’.
Conversely, that entity which is dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being partakes of only a ‘contingent’ (relative) existence, for its extrinsic causes must necessarily exist independent of and antecedent to the entity itself. Such an entity may either arise or not arise, depending upon whether or not its causes come together in the appropriate relationship; that is to say, the correct mode of distribution. Further, given that its extrinsic causes are subject to external influences, their relationship to one another is constantly changing, and so too does the relative entity abide in a state of perpetual flux.