[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[David M]

Ham

You connect me fairly to this quote.
I certainly think of existence as just a small sample
of what is possible. What is possible is vast and
without limit, it is that which is able to provide the
re-sources required to make any universe, so it
has no limitations. What can we say about an
X that is unlimited? I suggest nothing, otherwise it
would be a positive something and therefore limited
in some way. So I see that beyond this finite yet expanding
cosmos is always some infinity of the possible that we may
as well call nothing, because from this side of the border
it is nothing, it is all that which is not here and now.

Our world is but one voyage through the totality of
the possible. You could say that we are just one
of god's self-explorations, though her own vastness,
in search of her own identity, which may be too vast
even for a god (higher level pattern of self-consciousness).

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


>
> David --
>
>
>> Ham
>>
>> well then is there any difference between sensibility
>> and an original 'quality experience'? In the beginning
>> was the void, full of potential, and it felt something stir.
>
> I'm not sure I know what an original 'quality experience' is -- some kind 
> of
> epiphany, perhaps?  -- but your quote appears to have been taken from the
> 2004 documentary "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" and it sounds like a 
> mingling
> of John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1.
>
> I prefer this variation from Jack Black's "Cosmogeny":
>
> "In the beginning there was VOID, who had two daughters; one (the smaller)
> was that of BEING, named ERIS, and one (the larger) was of NON-BEING, 
> named
> ANERIS. (To this day, the fundamental truth that Aneris is the larger is
> apparent to all who compare the great number of things that do not exist
> with the comparatively small number of things that do exist.)"
>
> It closes with an italicized footnote which 'voidists' like you and Scott
> will probably like:
>
> "And so it is that we, as men, do not exist until we do; and then it is 
> that
> we play with our world of existent things, and order and disorder them, 
> and
> so it shall be that non-existence shall take us back from existence and 
> that
> nameless spirituality shall return to Void, like a tired child home from a
> very wild circus."   -- [http://everything2.com/index.pl?]
>
> Given that a void is what does not exist and appearance is what does, the
> ultimate source of existence is either nothingness or essence.  Which of
> these sources makes more sense to you?
>
> --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/
>