--WebTV-Mail-976691909-13034 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
The whole of existence is like an object. It shows "necessary" action (action directly related to objective characteristics: ie round things roll). This action is thus inherently "logical" because what is objective (round), when re-stated temporally in successive "nows" (rolling), is not contradicted by the apparent change from one moment to the next (the logic remains that round things roll). Thus, according to *logic*, "reason" can be traced historically from causative event or object to effect.
*Truth* is the property of existence which is affirmed when reason is given in the moment (in the example, "ball" is the objective "truth" of the logic "round things roll"). Truth is CONFIRMED to the degree that the reasons provided are shown to be about what is objective according to the *logic* of existence (as defined): Similarly, *truth* is the means by which existence might be said to have "persistence of being".
Read this statement again:
"Order is freedom from chance".
It is a logical statement, why can't you comprehend what it implies?
Chance existence is deviation from "no existence" but pre-supposes "error" (since the "error" which is detected through the manifestation of that which exists, is circularly "proof" that such exists by "chance").
As such, *Freedom* (with regard to chance) is the sum of all possible "errors". Thus, freedom also represents EXISTENCE without regard for chance (or to a 100% certainty). Restated, this suggests that freedom FROM chance is order. More directly, this says that existence is 100% certain.
Will is the supposed negation of chance; but the affirmation of chance
is order (in this way, will opposes order and this is not necessitated
through chance but by force):
Order occurs as a temporalization of existence (as what exists "here" and "there" is expressed in terms of "here and here" through successive "nows"). This dimensional restatement of what exists defines the logic of temporal existence with regard to the "truth" of spacial existence (order affirms what exists with *certainty*).
The reasoned restatement of this truth thus speaks of the "action" of existence as *being*. Thus, the "incarnation" of this being within existence (as Being) IS a potential to act but does not require the willful negation of chance by way of chaos through force (though does suggest the ordered affirmation of existence by way of freedom).
I confront force with truth.
Brett Lane Robertson
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
--WebTV-Mail-976691909-13034 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (184.108.40.206) by postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Tue, 18 May 1999 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id TAA02024; Tue, 18 May 1999 19:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA00429 for virus-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 19:52:49 -0600From: "psypher" <email@example.com>
> If by "experientially", you mean *humanistically*
...the set [experience] encompasses, but is not limited to the set [humyn experience]
...hey hermit, am I getting the hang of this at all?
and define this
> according to human error (as opposed to logic)
...reliance on the exclusivity of logic as an indicator of either truth, or knowledge is, well, silly.
Though our point of departure is,
> more accurately, that I do not believe in error, chaos, or "will"
...hmmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "error" in this context. I suppose you have a right not to believe in chaos, but I definitely don't understand your equation of will with force.
...this I didn't get at all.
> I understand that in oppressive situations, order tends to imply
> SOMEONE ELSE'S order so that freedom tends to imply freedom FROM
> order. But, I use *freedom* as in "freedom from chance".
...Margaret Atwood [whom I don't actually like very much but I keep
agreeing with her] elucidated "freedoms from" and "freedoms to" in
her novel "The Handmaids Tale" - which is instructive in several
respects. I have no beef at all with order. I do see a need for both
sorts of freedom though.
...but I can't understand the concept of "freedom from chance"
> allows that both freedom and order are in line with one's OWN
> awareness (and that this awareness is founded upon a necessary
...what is this necessary truth to which you allude? ...I can accede to freedom and order being coexistant.
> I side WITH those who represent order but only to the degree that
> the order they represent does not involve force. And I side AGAINST
> those who use the potential for force which is inherent in
> orderliness as an excuse to justify forced error (as if the power of
> those who represent order justifies the will of those who represent
...just a query, how do you express your dissent to the use of force if you deny the validity of will?