Post by rainshine87 on Feb 7, 2008 13:54:23 GMT -5
Okay chaps, I'm going to attempt to give a short explanation of a thesis I've recently come up with, which I call 'the formal triad', as I'd be grateful of input and criticism. I suspect I might miss something important out, but here goes:
All things have Being through Substance. That is, all forms (for a thing is a form) that are, are through substance; or, all things that have being are substantial. From this we get a triad:
Being
Essential Substance
Form
Each of these principles makes the principle below possible - Essence 'is' through being, whilst things (forms) 'are' through Substance.
We cannot talk or think about Being in itself, because Being is 'isness', so in questioning 'what is being?' we are asking 'what is isness? or 'why is isness?' or 'why does being have being?' or 'what gives being to being?' This clearly makes no sense. Being is not a thing, it is above Form, therefore it cannot be known, for the mind can only know 'things' and Being is 'nothing'. According to my theory, it is possible for there to be 'beings' which are not 'things' - to have being without being 'a thing'.
Essential Substance equally cannot be known, as it is also above Form. It is also infinite and timeless. Let me explain why:
Finitude is having boundary, that is, form. Infinitude is, then, being formless. If Essence is prior to Form, then it is Formless, and so is 'no thing' - 'nothing'. It also, then, cannot be thought of.
We often try and think of an infinite 'thing', but no thing can be Infinite, as a thing is a form, and Form is fundamentally finite. This is why 'infinity' cannot be thought.
The Essential Substance would also seem to be timeless, as (arguably) time is a measurement of movement, and movement is an interaction of forms. If there is no Form, there cannot be movement, and so cannot be time. Hence, Essential Substance is both infinite and timeless.
It would seem then, that what I have called Essential Substance corresponds to the religious idea of Brahman, Godhead, Ain Soph, the Plotinian 'One', and the Absolute.
That is the crux of my theory, and the main part which I would like your opinions on, though I have also been recently considering how form came into being from formlessness:
Essential Substance has Being, but no Form, therefore it is real, but unmanifest. It is not spatial, as space is inherently a quality of form. (Things take up space - 'nothing' takes up no space).
If, as the Hindus hold, Brahman (Essential Substance) is pure consciousness, then, in seeking to know itself, a formless thing would instantly become a dyad - a formal thing - because you then have a knower and a part to be known. The knower and the known would both be the one God, but yet distinct, and this is what form is; it is not absolute otherness, but distinction in unity. Therefore, duality, and so form, would be born with the Essence seeking to know itself. As to how a formless thing could have a self, I am not wholly sure. But I suspect that, though formless, it is itself pure potentiality. Therefore, when it seeks to know itself, that potential becomes manifest.
You may ask, "but when did this Essential Substance, this pure consciousness, choose to know itself, and why did it not do so before hand?" The answer is that it did not choose to know itself at any time, as, just as I have shown, the Essence is timeless. Therefore, there can equally be no 'before' and 'after'. Time only appears with form and movement. Hence, the formal universe did not appear at any time, it's appearance was the beginning of time.
Another question is how something at rest could act, as seeking to know itself would be an act. Surely there would have to be a cause of it doing so? But no, not necessarily, because the law of cause and effect appears with form - it is based upon the interaction of multiples (forms) - one thing acting on another. In Essential Substance there is no multiplicity, no distinction, and so the law of cause and effect does not apply. It need not be caused, it is the first cause, it is Aristotle's 'Unmoved Mover'.
This section may be mistaken, as I've not spent the time to think it out really carefully, but I'm pretty confident about the first part. I'd love your opinions, and If I've left anything out, I'm sure your questions will bring up any elements of my theory which I might have left out.
All things have Being through Substance. That is, all forms (for a thing is a form) that are, are through substance; or, all things that have being are substantial. From this we get a triad:
Being
Essential Substance
Form
Each of these principles makes the principle below possible - Essence 'is' through being, whilst things (forms) 'are' through Substance.
We cannot talk or think about Being in itself, because Being is 'isness', so in questioning 'what is being?' we are asking 'what is isness? or 'why is isness?' or 'why does being have being?' or 'what gives being to being?' This clearly makes no sense. Being is not a thing, it is above Form, therefore it cannot be known, for the mind can only know 'things' and Being is 'nothing'. According to my theory, it is possible for there to be 'beings' which are not 'things' - to have being without being 'a thing'.
Essential Substance equally cannot be known, as it is also above Form. It is also infinite and timeless. Let me explain why:
Finitude is having boundary, that is, form. Infinitude is, then, being formless. If Essence is prior to Form, then it is Formless, and so is 'no thing' - 'nothing'. It also, then, cannot be thought of.
We often try and think of an infinite 'thing', but no thing can be Infinite, as a thing is a form, and Form is fundamentally finite. This is why 'infinity' cannot be thought.
The Essential Substance would also seem to be timeless, as (arguably) time is a measurement of movement, and movement is an interaction of forms. If there is no Form, there cannot be movement, and so cannot be time. Hence, Essential Substance is both infinite and timeless.
It would seem then, that what I have called Essential Substance corresponds to the religious idea of Brahman, Godhead, Ain Soph, the Plotinian 'One', and the Absolute.
That is the crux of my theory, and the main part which I would like your opinions on, though I have also been recently considering how form came into being from formlessness:
Essential Substance has Being, but no Form, therefore it is real, but unmanifest. It is not spatial, as space is inherently a quality of form. (Things take up space - 'nothing' takes up no space).
If, as the Hindus hold, Brahman (Essential Substance) is pure consciousness, then, in seeking to know itself, a formless thing would instantly become a dyad - a formal thing - because you then have a knower and a part to be known. The knower and the known would both be the one God, but yet distinct, and this is what form is; it is not absolute otherness, but distinction in unity. Therefore, duality, and so form, would be born with the Essence seeking to know itself. As to how a formless thing could have a self, I am not wholly sure. But I suspect that, though formless, it is itself pure potentiality. Therefore, when it seeks to know itself, that potential becomes manifest.
You may ask, "but when did this Essential Substance, this pure consciousness, choose to know itself, and why did it not do so before hand?" The answer is that it did not choose to know itself at any time, as, just as I have shown, the Essence is timeless. Therefore, there can equally be no 'before' and 'after'. Time only appears with form and movement. Hence, the formal universe did not appear at any time, it's appearance was the beginning of time.
Another question is how something at rest could act, as seeking to know itself would be an act. Surely there would have to be a cause of it doing so? But no, not necessarily, because the law of cause and effect appears with form - it is based upon the interaction of multiples (forms) - one thing acting on another. In Essential Substance there is no multiplicity, no distinction, and so the law of cause and effect does not apply. It need not be caused, it is the first cause, it is Aristotle's 'Unmoved Mover'.
This section may be mistaken, as I've not spent the time to think it out really carefully, but I'm pretty confident about the first part. I'd love your opinions, and If I've left anything out, I'm sure your questions will bring up any elements of my theory which I might have left out.
