|
Hi Harv,
I see no reason to refrain from discussing Dick's work; as it was published on the internet. He can even defend it here if he wants.
Its not Chris Langan's IQ, but what he says, that looks quite interesting.
Why do I think "Existence" is a person? Requires thought and more time to answer.
Yes, my metaphysics is very like the movie "the matrix". It appears that our "reality" is in some ways like a virtual reality; but it is very real. Its just that "QED" and "As you judge, so you are judged" seem similar. Matter may be a component of consciousness; it may all be about perspectives, dimensions of consciousness.
A: "No infinite regress of "relationships" if the basic relationship is "with Existence"; it is with infinite expansion of relationship opportunities."
I mean, start with "a" exists.
Now I would say there is a relationship here: "a" relating with "Existence".
From here, "a" can now relate to "b".
Now, "a related to b" can now relate to "c".
Now, a sum of histories is happening here. (((a related to b) related to c) now relates to d)
Now, along comes "e". So the sum of relating involving "a" 's history gives:
((((a related to b) related to c) related to d) now relates to e).
The nesting brackets are like nesting Russian dolls. I was starting with the smallest doll, and going up through the layers; not regressing down them.
I can see why the notion "with Existence" seems bewildering. If one supposes that God is a person Who is "Existence" ("I AM WHO AM"); then to BE is to be existing, so is to be with that person, God.
If something only exists when held together by glue, for that item to exist involves it being "with glue". God must be the "glue" that holds existent entities together. This is consistent with the definition "God is love".
Defining ontological roundness could be tricky.
thanks,
dolphin |
