For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
I think it should be quite clear that we are not on the same page about some aspect of the subject.
This may relate to my use of the word ‘sentience’, and your unwillingness to interpret it in the eternal context as I intended. From now on I will try to stick with the more accurate term; “Self’. This would de-emphasize the issues of “intention” and “will”, which have confused things so far. Those characteristics, only being “potential” in the non-relative or absolute condition.
Self: the infinitely dynamic potential of infinitude. The (non-anthropomorphized) ground of all being.
Finite Infinities: The prime numbers; The even numbers; Every number except ‘2’; Conditions with the latent potential to exist, excluding the intangible ones (like thought and imagination); All
sentient life instances of localized self awareness, except the one called Write4U, etc.
Infinite Infinity: There is only one. We’ve been calling it the ‘true’.
At this point the whole thing is getting overworked to the extreme. Perhaps if you grant me the above adjustments, we can conclude that we are indeed on the same page. The difference being in what we view as important.
The following was in my mailbox yesterday morning. I was going to include it in the last post, but thought it was a too blunt, and bound to be taken wrong anyway.
Now it seems to be just the thing.
Lao Tsu (Tao Teh Ching) – “As the meaning of Tao was lost among humanity, it was replaced with intelligence. Along with intelligence came hypocrisy.”