james.mccabe (james@oranda.com)
Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:22:00 +0100
Lawrie Douglas wrote:
> We can possess a concept marked "nothing", but not the meaning which
> it
> implies. That is entirely virtual. It does not exist; we project its
> existence. The same goes for the idea of a perfect circle, say, or
> infinite
> beauty. We can assume the existence of these things, but never
> actually see
> them. The moment we interrogate them, try to locate them, pin them
> down,
> they collapse, fragmenting into individual, limited parts. We can find
>
> relative absences of things, and relative beauties, but never
> absolutes.
I think that's true. Historically it took a while to invent the concept
of 'zero'.
Absence is a derived concept.
> [deleted]
> To acknowledge this, is to do away with the problem of trying to
> define
> "everything", and with it that of trying, in the interests of defining
>
> Quality, to isolate it from the common usage of the word. To say that,
>
> "Quality is everything," is not too obvious and vague to be of any
> worth.
> That nothing does not exist means that existence truly EXISTS. (Sorry,
> write
> in capitals, and you start start to sound bonkers, but you can't do
> italics
> in this format.) Existence must exist, for nothing does not. There has
>
> always been something here and always will.
>
My own offering would be that Quality is the *goal* of existence. In
other words the missing link between "Quality" and "reality" is
teleological. Ends arise from causes; subjects arise from objects; the
mind is born of matter.
-- James McCabe http://www.oranda.com/personal-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST