For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[I’m resuming after a hiatus from editing and re-posting here. Much was said but it got left where it was.]
[I’ve quoted the last paragraph but my comment was addressed to the entire comment in general. It is well worth reading. Epiphileon’s comment history is also well worth reviewing. He is quite sincere and balanced.]
Epiphileon – “There is another criticism I have heard. Naturalists, which is what those who hold to the notions I’ve described are sometimes called, have robbed themselves of wonder. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been on many other sides of this issue, and I can assure you I have experienced more profound levels of wonder than I ever did as any kind of super-naturalist.“
The coherence of nature is first and foremost the result of origination via the perfection of infinitude.
Be sure to give credit where credit is due.
Epiphileon – “Sorry but I have no idea what that means.“
[From Epiphileon’s original comment]
“How is this system doing what it is? (at one level, being conscious)
How did this system come to be configured in this manner?”
I’m not arguing with your understanding that these questions can be answered without going outside of nature.
There is nothing supernatural to be accounted for.
But…unless the underlying infinity is recognized, first and foremost, we just weave more webs of entanglement. Postponing enlightenment.
Simplicity before and within Complexity.
Infinite potential is absolutely perfect. This quality cascades throughout all expression of that potential as Existence/Experience.
Acknowledging this, we understand our relationship to it.
Epiphileon – “Sorry Brmckay but I am still not getting what you are saying.
I get that you are not arguing against naturalism, even that you apparently accept it, but that is all I understood from your reply.
I would like to understand you position. I do not know what you mean by ‘underlying infinity’, something without beginning nor end I assume. So are you speaking of something outside of this universe, or something that this universe exists within, and is somehow sensible to us?
What do you mean by webs of entanglement, and how is it that we weave these?
I understand potential to be possibility, not to be an actual thing, as you seem to indicate. If that is so, what is it.
So expression of that potential, which I am temporarily assuming is some sort of uber-force, which creates existence which coexists with experience, and that perfection (really reaching here), proceeds from the infinitude, through all of the natural world, at successive levels from simplicity to complexity, with each level causing the next, and perhaps reflecting the original perfection, perhaps to varying degrees?
I am genuinely curious what you position is, not sure those questions help much, but I’m pretty sure they reflect the state of ignorance in my mind of what you are saying.“
Thanks for the questions. (a rare thing really)
What I’m trying to point out is represented in the literature of the classical monist schools. Vedanta, Zen, Tao, Yoga etc. Just in case you have familiarity there, and got thrown off by my improvisations.
“I do not know what you mean by ‘underlying infinity’, something without beginning nor end I assume.“
There are the infinite sets we find in mathematics. These are the relative infinities. They have the quality of endlessness and possibly beginninglessness, but are unique and distinct from other infinite sets.
This represents the world of forces, phenomena, things, relationship, Change, This and That, I and Thou, Duality.
There is also the absolute infinitude of the Entirety. Or as I sometimes prefer, the Singularity. Everything and nothing. One without another.
This represents the un-carved block, the Source. Undifferentiated and Whole.
It is the absolute potential of nothing. Because there is no distinction between parts. This is the common ground. Everything; every phenomena, every thought and feeling is an emergent characteristic of this absolute infinity.
Just as the phenomena of “Space/Time” is an emergent characteristic of the dimensionless, eternal “Now”.
“So are you speaking of something outside of this universe, or something that this universe exists within, and is somehow sensible to us?“
Inside and Outside are terms from the relative viewpoint. In the more fundamental Truth of the absolute viewpoint, there is no distinction. The integrity is seamless. The parts are not different from the whole.
“What do you mean by webs of entanglement, and how is it that we weave these?“
Loosing sight of the bigger picture. Trapped in anthropomorphic and ultimately egocentric world view. The sense of ownership and realness of a separate self.
From that constricted viewpoint, we slice and dice, and mix and match, without the conscious benefit of the uninterrupted integrity.
“I understand potential to be possibility, not to be an actual thing, as you seem to indicate. If that is so, what is it.“
“Potential” is not a “thing” among other “things”, it is the source, and the foundation, and the thing itself.
Potential is the utter unlimitedness of infinity.
“So expression of that potential, which I am temporarily assuming is some sort of uber-force, which creates existence which coexists with experience, and that perfection (really reaching here), proceeds from the infinitude, through all of the natural world, at successive levels from simplicity to complexity, with each level causing the next, and perhaps reflecting the original perfection, perhaps to varying degrees?“
I’m hoping that the flatlandian aspects of this part of your comment are now apparent.
Language reaches its limit when trying to describe the unlimited.
Existence and Experience arise simultaneously. The complementarity of this pair is demonstrated in all relative phenomena.
Complementarity is the perfection of the undivided and ever-present Source, expressing as relationship.
Epiphileon – “Wow, thank you so much, this is a view I was entirely unfamiliar with.
It almost seems like a mysticism without supernaturalism. That is just my immediate impression though. I need to spend more time digesting it though. I know I will have more questions.“
Thank you. I am glad for this meeting and have read through a lot of your comment history.
I really like the integrity and balance to be found there. Others might benefit from doing so as well.