[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Heather Perella]

     I don't want to get into multiple posts with you
Ham, but I couldn't resist commenting on this one.

     [Ham]
> Your statement makes sense only in the context of
> finite existence, and you
> have qualified it with the words "in our finite
> terms."  What I am
> suggesting is that ultimate reality cannot be
> defined in finite terms, and
> that it cannot be "Nothing".

     Infinite and Nothing, to me, go hand and hand. 
I'm getting the feeling that you believe that Absolute
Essence knows everything, is all-knowing thus can't be
nothing.  If so, this is why I also veer from your
thesis.  I believe ultimate reality doesn't know
what's coming next.  Whatever foresight ultimate
reality has, I'm sure it's more than mine, on some
kind of larger scale, but I also believe ultimate
reality has the capability to make something totality
new, even to itself.


     [Ham]
 Essence is not subject to divisions or
> levels because it is
> absolute.

     Those levels are not discrete divisions.  The
levels overlap each other, and at the same time are
able to be specific enough.  It's the tree is a tree,
and a tree is a proton, electron, etc...  Different
levels overlapping each other, dependent upon each
other.  You can define one level, but never totally
depend on the definition of one level to completely
define the universe.  The universe has many
overlapping levels with specific levels that overlap
and combine levels to have proton be a tree and a
proton can be the sun, etc... 

Anyways...

SA

 
 


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com