CPI vs OD
November 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
The Confession of Partial Ignorance vs The Ontological Difference
now that the ontological difference, OD, has been clarified somewhat;
perhaps, this is a good time to revisit the confession of partial
ignorance, CPI, in relation to the OD. as previous noted, the CPI is:
I know that I am; but, not what I am.
Michael Eldred has recently described the OD this way:
>ME: No. But we can only “see” electrons AS the abstract semi-integer
>solutions to a second-order partial differential equation; that is
>their IDEA which also exists within this mathematical casting of being
>– just as we can only see a being as something through the IDEA of
>something. The IDEA is not a subjective “idea” in our tiny little
>heads, nor is it “objectively” out there in the world, but is
>subject-object, i.e. in between in the ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE. And that
>is the great deficiency of thinking in the modern age — that it moves
>obliviously back and forth between subject and object, remaining always
>clueless about what is in between.
it seems to me that the simple, undeniable CPI shows that there is no
the ontological difference in between subject and object — until it is
put in between ‘that’ and ‘what’.
to choose a noun to designate what I am, I would have to compare what I
know about the referent of ‘I’ to the definitions of the available nouns
(mind, soul, spirit, body, body/mind unity, being, etc.) and conclude I
am a … [choice of noun here].
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
