[MD] Free Will

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/2/11 3:18 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I do not deny evolution.  But since it's only the mode of existence, not its
> source, why should I equate "one" or unity with evolution?  Oneness applies
> only to the Absolute Source, where it defines metaphysical reality rather
> than a numerical integer.  I had always assumed that my correspondents
> existed too.  But, as you deny your individuality, I guess I've been talking
> to the social or intellectual level instead of a human individual named Joe.
> (No wonder I've had so much difficulty communicating with you!)
> 
> Thanks for the sarcastic sympathy anyway, Joe, whatever you are.

Hi Ham,

I certainly apologize for mistaking a mode modification in essence to
describe existence, for the reality of evolution.  I wonder how I would know
such a marvel that existence is a modal reality of essence.

I guess it was an assumption that levels in existence is a more defined and
therefore clearer way of describing reality in evolution rather than modes
of essence to which we attach the word evolution.  How can I distinguish
modes of essence from pure essence?

How can I describe Evolution, then as modes in essence?  I admit I do have
more difficulty seeing the reality of a rock and an aware individual
sentient as modes in essence rather than as different levels in existence.

Joe