[MD] Birth of subjects & objects

[David M]

[DM]:
> My way of looking at our experience is that whilst our
> outer experience is very open to many interpretations and is
> very rich it is in some sense finite relative to the potential &
> freedom that we seem to find in our inner and imaginative
> experience.  That's why mathematicians explore the possible
> more than the actual. There is surely a sense in which as
> agents and artists and makers that the potential is made
> actual and moves from the inner to the outer sphere.
> What other sense is there to creation, both human and natural.
> Wonder at this is what gave us the idea of divinity.  Is not a
> true and perfect circle not a potential idea, a perfect idea,
> essential to make sense of the actual, but is never truly found
> or actualised?

Ham: This is very well stated, with good examples, and I'm in agreement with 
all
of the above.


DM: Like to clarify that the sense inner and outer are both forms of
experience and both within experience, it is just a differentiation between
what you can point at and those experiences that are private unless shared
and brought into common experience and expressed via some medium
you can point at. All the stuff we point at too becomes enculturated
via social, intellectual, and personal SQ.


DM> Unlike Plato, of course, I think there is more to potential
> than the perfect; the infinite contains everything, not just
> the ideal, the anti-ideal too, and every form in-between,
> but only potentially. The potential is also not in some other
> realm, it is with us, it is entirely available in experience, if only
> you have the time and inclination to fully explore it, but like
> any journey you can't teleport around it, you have to work
> at it. We are a thread that separates the finite and in-finite,
> or SQ/DQ.



Ham:   I agree
that there is more to Essence than potential, though I don't like the
description "contains everything", which makes it pluralistic.

DM: I'm all for pluralism.

Ham: Cusanus
theorized a 'First Principle' that is the "coincidence of all contrariety,"
and I follow that theory because it facilitates a unified concept of Essence
(Oneness) without having to describe it.  If the potentiality of Essence is
its negational power, then difference is actualized by the negation of
Essence.

DM: In as far as the actual is only a subset of infinity it is a negation
of infinity that produces the actual it would seem.


Ham: As I see it, the primary difference is manifested in the separation of
Sensibility and Otherness, which in finite existence translates to
subjective awareness versus objective beingness.  For me, this represents
the S/O dichotomy that Pirsig seeks to avoid.

DM: You've got it, seems unnecessary to Pirsig, and me too.

  I use the word "absolute" for
Essence rather than "infinite" which connotes spacial dimensions.

DM: Yep, I do not see why the non-actual source would need spacial
dimensions. Our experience shows that DQ seems to be unlimited by space and 
time.

Ham: Also, I
reject David's suggestion that "the potential is...entirely available in
experience."  We can sense the potential (of Essence) only as the Value of
the self/other divide, and we experience a relational world by
differentiating Value into objective phenomena.

DM: I disagree, how else could we imagine how the entire cosmos possibly 
came to
be?