Reply
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 03:48 pm
Presence could perhaps be interpreted as needing its anti to not be itself in order to exist - in turn making its anti the need of presence to be itself in order to exist.
Presence needs anti to be not anti, and absence needs anti to be anti: in actuality, this would then suggest that absence is not opposed to itself, and presence is self-opposition. Because of this, absence could then be interpreted as having no reason to change, while presence has reason to change (except that it isn't able to be aware of this).
In light of all, could reality's root mission be the present ability to change, but via the reflection of no cause?
@Thomas33,
A question about a cause asks for a 'reason'-- the question is by its nature causal. So, you really don't understand your own question.
@AugustineBrother,
I understand the goal of resolution, and balances. Nature wants to cease discrepancy, but the means to doing so needs to be created.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace