- #36
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
Hi Les
Have considered the remainder of your initial post, my thoughts as follows :
The next few paragraphs of the first post in this thread go on (rather long-windedly imho) to explain how it may be some form of initial concentration of esse which is responsible for the observed “dispersion” of matter that we see today. But…… how can we have varying concentrations of esse without invoking dualism? A “concentration” of something implies there are a certain number of molecules/particles/grammes/litres (choose your units) of that “something” in “something else”. Thus to have a varying concentration of esse we must be able (in principle) to specify the quantity of esse per unit volume of non-esse. But to do this implies a duality of esse and non-esse.
Can you explain how the concept of a varying concentration of esse makes any sense when esse is supposed to be “all there is”? (It’s abit like saying that water is all there is, there is nothing else in creation apart from water, and then suggesting that there can be varying concentrations of water……). I hope you get my point.
Thanks
MF
Have considered the remainder of your initial post, my thoughts as follows :
This seems rather obvious. If esse is “all there is” then anything and everything in the universe must be wholly connected with esse.Les Sleeth said:Since there can be no spatial breach, the forms esse take (like a planet or ourselves) are understood to not only be composed of and within the primordial continuum of esse, but also wholly connected to (or one with) it.
Again, rather obvious that this should be the case. If esse is all there is then it follows that there is no appearance or behaviour which is not 100% determined by esse.Les Sleeth said:To avoid any sort of duality, esse must be seen as true absoluteness in the sense there is nothing more basic or greater than it; there is nothing before or beyond it; there can be no discontinuance of it; there is nothing that is not a manifestation of it; and there is no appearance or behavior which is not 100% (i.e., absolutely) determined by its potentials and limitations.
This presumes that creation was “within time and within esse”, however it is possible that both esse and time were created together. Nevertheless both time and esse may be finite yet unbounded, and it may make no more sense to ask “what was before esse?” or “what was before time?” than it makes sense to ask “what is south of the south pole?”Les Sleeth said:Substance monism seems to give us the means for eliminating some long standing philosophical problems, such as the first cause, infinite regress, and the silly “something from nothing” dilemma.
For example, if we assume that some potential of esse has brought about creation, then to answer first cause we’d reason that there must be conditions present in the infinite eternal esse continuum which can result in our finite temporal universe.
As stated above, the esse continuum may be finite yet unbounded. I do not see how “logic suggests any traits which are universally present throughout creation are the best candidates for exhibiting the nature of the ground state”.Les Sleeth said:Are there clues in creation which might tell us anything about such conditions in the esse continuum? Logic suggests any traits which are universally present throughout creation are the best candidates for exhibiting the nature of the ground state, as well as the conditions which prevail in the esse continuum.
The next few paragraphs of the first post in this thread go on (rather long-windedly imho) to explain how it may be some form of initial concentration of esse which is responsible for the observed “dispersion” of matter that we see today. But…… how can we have varying concentrations of esse without invoking dualism? A “concentration” of something implies there are a certain number of molecules/particles/grammes/litres (choose your units) of that “something” in “something else”. Thus to have a varying concentration of esse we must be able (in principle) to specify the quantity of esse per unit volume of non-esse. But to do this implies a duality of esse and non-esse.
Can you explain how the concept of a varying concentration of esse makes any sense when esse is supposed to be “all there is”? (It’s abit like saying that water is all there is, there is nothing else in creation apart from water, and then suggesting that there can be varying concentrations of water……). I hope you get my point.
Thanks
MF