The I and the i differ in a logical difference as ultimately differing as the idea that trillions of pattern recognitions between an eternal cosmos and am equally corresponding quantum downside can produce.
Here between the two poles it brackets semblances of parity, and it is almost as if the universe stretches temporal space so thin. as to recreate a veritable stillness .
This stillness is what is destroyed by the skeptics who constantly need proof by referring to a difference that they have claimed to be an absolute.
This absolute is just as suspect, as its integrated mirror image, and it is based on the desire for an absolute identity. This absolute I is different in kind from the other i, for they absolutely deny a.transcendental continuum.
A big mistake, to think of the brain as different from the mind, for the same reason as the artificial separation of the Creator from his (His?) creations.
What is duality? The fear that all those creatures which may have signaled our beginnings are too horrid to even begin to think about, forgetting that time resonates faster and faster as the so called conscious manifestation evolves toward its absolute, thereby blocking conscious memory, phylogenetically.
Heaven may signify an end time when change of.progression or of progressive change can no longer be measured, very similar to Leibnitz’idea of indiscernible variables. .
It’s no wonder that mathematics became the measure between expectation and actualíty, between differentiation and integration. The same difference can be observed in the perception of lived life, in an individual or social setting.
These patterns are not strange in an .existance , as in a void lacking patterns, but are permeated within constant interfaces and continuous processess.
We can not hold on to the I, be cause it exists in an artificial stillness for which We strive for constant recreation. We work alongside the Creator, or Nature, in an effort to better focus on the wonder of His own mirrored reflection, the.consciousness
with which he can simulate an eternity of still, of rest.
That this simulation works is grounded in memory’s constant conflict to remember, but only remember in order to forget.
This actually proves Descartes’ cutting off the deeper memory of the sense of dread, the Evil Genius, who simulates, but only to frighten the created into the furor of god’ s ungracious duplicity with him.
But it is not to BE, because the simulated Being is still stronger then the supposed Real existing object that is separated in an exact and definitely remarked existential epoch.
Godot, waiting for that point in time, never reaches it, because his cogito will not allow it.
It won’t, and therefore it can’t. Non cogito ergo non sum. The evil genius wins, to sustain the illusion, only to find his victory grounded in defeat.
They are one and the same. Beyond good and evil, and the thingness captures the nothingness.
To me this conclusion is inescapable, for the same differential identity.
If You seen this another semantic manipulation, think of it as the difference between the dawn and the twilight of civilization; if value is attributed to civilized Man, then that It’self should serve as a mirror of equivocation between before and after civilization as a form of intentionality, a supposition which can be exercised from the idea of pattern interplay, indistinct from the idea of any agency polarizing around a halo of reductive consciousness of consciousness, within absolutely reducible patterns-although that is also within the realm of the possible.
The charge against this formulation of a Deity, implying a god split between spirit and matter, must show evil within the bounded temporally existential self deciding separation of the Deity from its temporally marked effect.
The Deity human anomalies suffer the god and the man toward their absolute godmen intentionality as supermen, as a transitional stage.
The early anthropomorphic gods showed vestiges of this idea on mostly subliminal levels.
I traveled back in time , to point out that Your answers to Surreptitious hazardly or intentionally circumvent his objections.
Maybe this is what You mean by an equity among is to misunderstand.
Very difficult conceptions are very easy to comprehend as those simple ones are the most difficult.